|
|
For these reasons, the Court held that it could not be inferred from iiNet's inactivity after receiving the AFACT notices that it had authorised any act of infringement of copyright in the appellants' films by its customers.
iiNet CEO, Michael Malone, said the judgment supported the company's position and proved the claims made against it were unfounded.
He re-iterated his earlier advice to the film industry that increasing the availability of lawful, online content in a more timely, affordable and reasonably priced manner was the best method to protect content owners' copyright.
He said there was strong evidence that content partnerships and agreements between ISPs, legal websites and copyright holders had done more to reduce 'piracy' and to showcase copyright holders' materials than their legal battle against iiNet.
The Full Bench of the High Court delivered two separate judgements: one from Justices French, Crennan and Kiefel and one from Justices Gummov and Hayne. Both however dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to iiNet.
The judgement of Gummow and Hayne reached the same primary conclusion about lack of direct power to prevent but also undertook broader analysis of the legislative history and policy considerations.
|
You can read more stories on telecommunications in our newsletter ExchangeDaily, click here to sign up for a free trial... |
