iiNet win puts onus on ISPs: lawyers

iiNet win puts onus on ISPs: lawyers

Summary: Despite the fact that the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) lost the appeal of the landmark iiNet copyright infringement case in the Federal Court yesterday, intellectual property law experts believe it is in a much stronger position to compel internet service providers to act on infringement notices.

SHARE:

Despite the fact that the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) lost the appeal of the landmark iiNet copyright infringement case in the Federal Court yesterday, intellectual property law experts believe it is in a much stronger position to compel internet service providers to act on infringement notices.

Gavel

(Gavel image by walknboston, CC2.0)

The full bench of the Federal Court yesterday dismissed AFACT's appeal of Justice Cowdroy's ruling that iiNet had not authorised its users to infringe copyright via sharing files with peer-to-peer technology. The court ruled in majority with Justices Nicholas and Emmett agreeing to dismiss the appeal, while Justice Jagot dissented.

"While the evidence supports a conclusion that iiNet demonstrated a dismissive and, indeed, contumelious, attitude to the complaints of infringement by the use of its services, its conduct did not amount to authorisation of the primary acts of infringement on the part of iiNet users," Emmett said in his judgement.

However, while the judges did dismiss AFACT's case, the justices effectively ruled that internet service providers (ISPs) were obligated to act on infringement notices if the information was substantial enough, which in AFACT's case it wasn't.

In his judgement, Emmett laid the groundwork for AFACT to re-evaluate its methods of issuing infringement notices to ISPs in such a way that the providers would then be compelled to act on them or be considered to have authorised infringement. According to Emmett, if iiNet was provided with "unequivocal and cogent evidence of the alleged primary acts of infringement by use of the iiNet service in question" and information on how that evidence was gathered in order for iiNet to verify the claims, and still didn't act, then the provider could be found to have authorised infringement.

He also recognised that copyright owners such as AFACT should be required to reimburse ISPs for the cost of verifying infringements and the cost of establishing and maintaining a system to monitor internet use to determine infringements. He said the copyright owner should also protect the ISP from loss or damage in the case that the company mistakenly suspends or terminates the internet service of a user who the copyright owner alleged to have infringed on copyright.

According to RMIT University general counsel John Lambrick, the judgement was a close call for iiNet.

"It seems the only thing that saved iiNet was that AFACT didn't present it with sufficient information for it to verify that the breaches had occurred," he said. "It doesn't really afford ISPs the latitude to ignore complaints by content owners in the way that the original judgement by Justice Cowdroy suggested."

"The thing that just puzzles me in all this is that despite the criticism of Justice Cowdroy's ruling, [the judges] still at the end of the day didn't overturn the [original] judgement. If they wanted to, they had plenty of ammunition to do so."

Middletons senior associate Troy Gurnett agreed.

"I think ISPs are going to have to look at that part of the reasons very carefully because the copyright owners, AFACT, probably won't make the same mistake twice."

Gurnett said the real question would be whether copyright owners such as AFACT would be willing to establish an ISP piracy action funding scheme similar to the one outlined by Justice Emmett, because it could be very costly for them.

"If we were just talking about one ISP, you could see how the copyright owners would go to that. If they have to put that kind of arrangement in with all the ISPs it's a pretty big ask," he said. "It's difficult to know what approach the copyright owners will take to that, but they still might think it's still preferable to try and lobby government and try to have a statutory scheme."

Clayton Utz partner John Fairbarn said the proposal of the compensation scheme for ISPs was an important step that may allow the two parties to agree on a mechanism of protecting copyright.

"That's a very important qualification on the notice requirement because one of the main complaints that has been made publicly by ISPs is that AFACT is trying to push the cost of enforcement on ISPs. Emmett has recognised this and in his view those costs should be met by the copyright owner," he said.

Lambrick suggested that if copyright owners were compensating ISPs to investigate the thousands of infringement notices they receive, then it might be a new business for the providers.

"If you were going to find compensation in respect of each one of those complaints it might create a rather lucrative second business arm for iiNet," he said.

Lambrick said that AFACT may not be too concerned if it is unable to get the case heard before the High Court.

"My view is even if they don't, it may not worry them too much because AFACT is in a stronger position than it was initially following Justice Cowdroy's original decision," he said, adding it was time for the government to step in.

"There is a need for the government to pass legislation that facilitates a solution which provides for downloader accountability, but at the same time doesn't impose an unreasonable cost or burden on the internet industry. Courts aren't really in a position to do that," he said. "That's really a matter for government and legislation and I think that's what we need to be looking at now."

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy last week said the government would examine policy regarding copyright infringement as part of an upcoming media convergence review.

AFACT executive director Neil Gane told ZDNet Australia that the organisation would consider the scheme outlined by Justice Emmett and was also willing to discuss alternatives with the ISPs.

"Even before the litigation we sent out correspondence to industry to have constructive discussion to find solutions to deter online infringements," he said. "We are more than happy to sit down and discus a model that does not impact on their business and one that protects the content of copyright holders."

He said the judgement paved the way for ISPs to be held liable for known repeat infringement copyright. He said all three judges said it was reasonable and effective for ISPs to send warning notices to customers shown to be downloading copyright infringing material and therefore the ISPs were in the "best position" to throttle, shape or suspend infringing accounts.

AFACT has 28 days to seek leave to appeal to the High Court; however, the group isn't automatically guaranteed the appeal will be heard.

Topics: Piracy, Government AU, Security, Telcos

About

Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

10 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • AFACT..... A FACT is that you are fighting a un-winnable ever losing war.

    It cost pirates nothing to pirate you "material", it costs you millions and millions in lawyers and court fees.

    I can already name 5 methods off the top of my head that you guys... well the people you pay since you are so technological inept can't track.

    I can also get a few infringement notices sent out to printers :)

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9535/study_bittorrent_users_prone_to_false_copyright_infringement_claims/

    Which bring me to the second point. If you are successful in getting our laws changed and our privacy further reduced, be warned it wont be the end of the fight.

    Also... You still have not caught on that BT is only a drop in the ocean of file sharing, the real shares you have no hope of catching... Only mums and dad.... Your bread and butter... Yep keep attacking them.. Just like the family dog... They will turn around and rip your head off when they have finally had enough.

    Forget about the pirates, focus your time, effort and money in improving your distribution methods, removed the in-equality in the market you have created..... Then **** and about pirates, until you do STFU.

    End today rant.

    (I wont even get into how Copyright laws have been bastardized by large corporations turning them into a perpetual license to print money completely going against the original spirit of copyrights) That is for tomorrow :)
    kirbykia@...
  • Oh what fun. Only winners out of today's decision were the lawyers. I can't wait to see how much money AFACT will have to spend to flesh out what the boundaries of "unequivocal and cogent evidence of the alleged primary acts of infringement" is.

    Thing is if anything ever does get done about piracy the "serious" pirates are just going to get foreign based proxy services. The minority hate content companies and the majority simply can't afford the content at list price. Only way you are going to get rid of piracy is to make the cost of content cheaper and better quality than pirated stuff.

    Yes that means content companies have to provide value! Shock horror.
    apexi-366d3
  • My question is how substantial is "substantial enough". I mean from the face of it there is no winner here, but the cost faced by AFACT may be "substantial enough" to leave the ISP alone. But still will wait till they appeal to the High Court.
    yanwc
  • No matter what all you have to do is just deny being on your PC at the time accused, and the onus is on AFACT to prove you were the person breaking copyright.

    I just wish people would see that the Music and Movie industries will never be the same, their lack of planning and adapting to the internet as a medium forced people to pirate, and now that the public are used to content for free, used to not waiting months for a TV show to air here in Australia, used to not being charged double the US price of media, even when the dollar is equal, things will never go back to how they were.

    The music and movie industries are on a knife edge, and leaning closer to falling for good. And I can't wait to watch it happen, maybe we'll get some talent in our music industry, not be spoonfed commercial ****.
    wadeal@...
  • Why not just publish low def and sell it at $2 retail, and then offer the current stuff at the normal price - then you will not have to chase as many pirates?
    amckern-b0f83
  • Judge must have been up to 'C' in his word of the day calendar.

    "While the evidence supports a conclusion that iiNet demonstrated a dismissive and, indeed, contumelious, attitude to the complaints of infringement..."

    contumelious
    Pronunciation:/ˌkɒntjʊˈmiːlɪəs/
    adjective
    archaic
    (of behaviour) scornful and insulting; insolent.
    blue tongue
    • I must admit Blue Tongue, I had to look up the definition of that word when I quoted him in the article.
      Josh Taylor
  • is the voice quality of the podcast going to increase soon, I think the bitrate is too low , I'm getting a lot of squeaks and hissing
    trax-dcc16
  • Fact: Copyright has been used to control the distribution of movies, music, and books around the world for decades.
    Fact: Copyright has been used to allow film owners to engage in monopolistic behavour.
    Fact: Copyright has been used to maximize profits.
    I had the Managing Director of a major film distibutor say to me that it was his product, and he would sell if he wanted to for the price he wanted to.
    This has always been, and will always be about MONEY.
    stephenluckins
  • Whether you like it or not, you are never going to be able to truly stop a determined pirate. In the same way that you can't stop a determined shoplifter at a retail store from stealing goods. Believe me, I have seen it happen both ways. One way or another, people are going to learn more determined, resilient, and tactful ways of going about their thefts. About the only thing that you can really do sometimes is scare people off enough to stop it from becoming some kind of epidemic. Even I have been scared off doing something I shouldn't, but if anything it has only slowed me down, yet hasn't truly stopped me.

    What I would truly like in this internet world is for a legal and easy way to do things that pirates do for free. Make it worth it just letting people spend a bit of money downloading it legitimately for personal use while making it incredibly easy, compared to letting those couple of dollars go towards proxy internet services, or maybe using up the broadband line (a BitTorrent download uses more data than a standard download).

    Case in point, I wanted to legally download music off popular legal websites, only to realise they are just as expensive as buying a physical copy. Why does it have to be so darn expensive to do things legally? In the end, I could have either spend a lot of money on the music, or somehow get it for free. Hell, even pay a little to someone else, get it for free, and get away with it. The money is going in the wrong place people!
    jhorner871@...