<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font size="-1">read /all/ of it.</font><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject: </th>
<td>[The IPKat] Is that AFACT? Copyright federation pursues
its quarry to High Court</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:37:13 -0700 (PDT)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Jeremy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jjip@btinternet.com"><jjip@btinternet.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jjip@btinternet.com">jjip@btinternet.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ipkat_readers@googlegroups.com">ipkat_readers@googlegroups.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PuMm_t6726k/TZEKmLnMryI/AAAAAAAARpw/dd7eVM8hTWk/s1600/iinet.gif"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right;
margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PuMm_t6726k/TZEKmLnMryI/AAAAAAAARpw/dd7eVM8hTWk/s1600/iinet.gif"
border="0"></a></div>
<b>Secondary liability on the internet is definitely the flavour of
the month. </b>Yesterday night the IPKat reported on the
liability of a search engine for contributory infringement of
copyright -- and this morning the spotlight turns on Australia,
where the question whether internet service providers (ISPs) are
liable for the acts of their subscribers is set to get the country's
top judges scratching their heads as they seek the right answer.
Thanks to the Kat's friend Catherine M Lee, this weblog can bring
you the following information:<br>
<blockquote>"Are Australian ISPs liable for the copyright
infringements of their subscribers? The High Court, the top court
in Australia, may soon be asked to give an answer.<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mfHtX3vNsCQ/TZEKc-EQDbI/AAAAAAAARps/HZBEiZ4Fs2w/s1600/afact.gif"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left;
margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mfHtX3vNsCQ/TZEKc-EQDbI/AAAAAAAARps/HZBEiZ4Fs2w/s200/afact.gif"
height="132" width="200" border="0"></a></div>
Proceedings between 34 members of <b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://afact.org.au/the-law.html">AFACT </a></b>(the
Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) and the ISP <b><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.iinet.net.au/index.html">iiNet </a></b>(the
third largest ISP in Australia) have been ongoing for over two
years and attracted considerable interest in Australia and
overseas. AFACT had investigated copyright infringement occurring
by means of a peer-to-peer system known as the <b><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.bittorrent.com/">BitTorrent</a></b>
protocol by subscribers and users of iiNet’s services. The
information generated from these investigations was then sent to
iiNet by AFACT, with a demand that iiNet take action to stop the
infringements occurring, though the measures AFACT asked iiNet to
take were not clearly stated. iiNet failed to take any steps to
stop infringing conduct. Did this mean that iiNet had authorised
the copyright infringement of certain users?<br>
<br>
In November 2008, numerous AFACT members commenced legal
proceedings against iiNet. The case came before Cowdroy J sitting
in the Federal Court, commencing in October 2009 and lasting for
20 days. In February 2010, Cowdroy J found that iiNet did not
authorise the infringements of copyright of the iiNet users. His
Honour reached this conclusion following three primary findings: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qqgwxVNlmLs/TZEK5Ds-LFI/AAAAAAAARp0/k_ZGIYDYaPU/s1600/BitTorrent.jpg"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right;
margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qqgwxVNlmLs/TZEK5Ds-LFI/AAAAAAAARp0/k_ZGIYDYaPU/s200/BitTorrent.jpg"
height="61" width="200" border="0"></a></div>
<blockquote>1. the mere provision of access to the internet was
not the ‘means’ of authorising infringement. Rather, the ‘means’
by which the AFACT members’ copyright is infringed is an iiNet
user’s use of the constituent parts of the BitTorrent system,
something over which iiNet has no control or responsibility.<br>
2. a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of
customer accounts was not (in this instance) a relevant power to
prevent copyright infringement or a reasonable step to take.<br>
3. iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or
countenancing copyright infringement: iiNet has done no more
than to provide an internet service to its users. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>The AFACT members appealed to the Full Federal Court.
This appeal was dismissed by the majority (Nicholas and Emmett JJ,
Jagot J dissenting) in February 2011. However despite this, the
AFACT members ended up in a stronger position than they were
following the first instance decision of Cowdroy J. The main
reasons for this were that: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>1. Emmett J in effect also ruled that, in certain
circumstances, ISPs would be obliged to act on infringement
notices when provided with ‘unequivocal and cogent evidence of
the alleged primary acts of infringement by use of the … service
in question’ or be considered to have authorised infringement
(at [210]).<br>
2. All the justices agreed that iiNet could not protect itself
by claiming that it was a "Safe Harbour" for it did not have a
policy to deal which allowed for termination of repeat
infringers in appropriate circumstances (Emmett J at [272],
Jagot J at [524], Nicholas J at [803]).</blockquote>
Nonetheless, on Thursday 24 March 2011, the members of AFACT
indicated that they would seek leave to appeal to the High Court.
In a <b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://afact.org.au/pressreleases/pdf/2011/AFACT%20Media%20Release%2024.3.11.pdf">press
release</a></b> issued on behalf of the Australian and US film
studios, AFACT Executive Director Neil Gane suggested that the
appeal would make the case that the Full Federal Court had
incorrectly applied the legal test for authorisation and
that iiNet did have sufficient knowledge of the acts of
infringement committed by its subscribers. iiNet's response to
this move, reflected in its own <b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/110324-court-challenge-wont-stop-illegal-downloads.html">media
release </a></b>of the same date, is that more litigation is
not a solution and that it is time for the studios to work with
the internet industry to make their works more readily and cheaply
available online".</blockquote>
The IPKat looks forward to a High Court decision on the thorny issue
of the responsibility for ISPs for copyright infringement committed
by their subscribers in light of the new ISP provisions in the
Copyright Act 1968 introduced as a result of the Australia-US Free
Trade Agreement. Merpel however wonders whether it is a task for
parliament and not the courts to make downloaders accountable for
their infringing actions without imposing burdensome requirements on
ISPs.<br>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><u>Sources</u></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">First instance ruling in <i>Roadshow Films
Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd</i> [2010] FCA 24 (4 February 2010) <b><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html">here</a></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">Appeal decision in <i>Roadshow Films Pty
Ltd v iiNet Ltd </i>[2011] FCAFC 23 (24 February 2011) <b><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html">here</a></b></div>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Posted By Jeremy to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-that-afact-copyright-federation.html">The
IPKat</a> on 3/29/2011 09:37:00 AM
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the IPKat's
email readers' group.<br>
For forthcoming events, check the IPKat's sidebar at <a href="<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ipkat.com">http://www.ipkat.com</a>><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ipkat.com">www.ipkat.com</a></a><br>
To unsubscribe, email the IPKat <a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ipkat_readers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">"mailto:ipkat_readers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com"</a>>here</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>