iiNet wins landmark copyright stoush

Beverley Head
Thursday, 24 February 2011 16:01

IT Industry - Listed Tech

The film industry has lost its Federal Court battle against local internet service provider iiNet over alleged copyright theft after a 2:1 decision. While a High Court appeal is widely anticipated the film industry, under the banner of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), lost no time on calling for the Government to legislate and force ISPs to do more to prevent copyright theft.

AFACT said it would study the judgement and review its options, which include an appeal to the High Court of Australia. Both it and iiNet have however already lobbed the copyright ball into Canberra's court, both calling for an overhaul of copyright legislation to bring it up to date with the internet era.

A clearly relieved iiNet CEO Michael Malone, who was in court to hear today's judgement handed down by Justice Emmett, said later that there now needed to be 'more clarity for carriage providers and telcos' and that clarity needed to come from the Federal Government. Asked whether new technologies alone could fix the problem of unauthorised copying or piracy, Mr Malone said; 'I don't believe this is a technology problem, it's a societal problem.'

'Let's find a middle way. This has wasted two years and hasn't fixed anything,' said Mr Malone who said that copying had continued unabated while the court case continued.

AFACT, representing the film-makers has always claimed that iiNet, through its business practices effectively authorised copyright infringement, and not acted to clamp down on people using its network to engage in copyright theft.

But in February 2010 Justice Cowdroy's decision cleared iiNet of copyright breaches and awarded costs against AFACT.

AFACT then appealed that decision, nominating 15 separate grounds for appeal.

Handing down the judgment in Sydney this afternoon Justice Emmett said he had concluded that the appeal should be dismissed although it had succeeded in a number of respects he said. Justice Jagot concluded that the appeal should be allowed, while Justice Nicholas agreed with Justice Emmett that the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal judges have agreed costs need further consideration and a directions hearing is set for March.