

Courts determine Australian ISPs not liable for users piracy. - steerpike
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm?section=justin

======
sh1mmer
"Mr Cobden also suggested that the companies should ask the file-sharing
program BitTorrent to do more to crack down on piracy."

I think people may not quite understand how this works (again).

~~~
JacobAldridge
Perhaps BitTorrent should run for congress, and just confuse the judicial
system in multiple countries, on multiple fronts.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1098559>

~~~
pyre
That's an interesting parallel. What would happen is a multi-national
corporation ran for office? How would that affect relations between foreign
operations and the government of the jurisdictions where they reside?

------
MikeCapone
Any Australian HN readers could explain why Australia (or at least its
government) seems to be obsessed with controlling the Internet? Australia
seems like a pretty open country otherwise.

~~~
pyre
Corruption? I remember hearing that at least one of the Australian
states/provinces had massive police corruption that was discovered back in the
80's or so, and many of the people involved still hold positions. (Please
correct me if I'm wrong)

Maybe government corruption is rampant? IIRC in Italy there is a lot of
corruption in the government, but people just accept it as a fact of life.

~~~
astrec
You're right.

Police corruption was rife in New South Wales which resulted in the Wood Royal
Commission
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_the_New_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_the_New_South_Wales_Police_Service)
and also in Queensland see the Fitzgerald Inquiry etc.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-
Petersen#Fitzgerald_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-
Petersen#Fitzgerald_Inquiry)

Current government policy is generally not the result of corruption.

~~~
andrewtj
The Victorian and Western Australian Police forces have also had a checkered
history; the remnants of which may be ongoing.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Police#Recent_history_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Police#Recent_history_-
_controversy_and_corruption_allegations)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australia_Police#2002_R...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australia_Police#2002_Royal_commission)

------
10ren
I agree with this decision. In Australia, although the Federal Court is not
the highest court in the land (that's the High Court), it is generally
recognized as having particular expertise in IP. Therefore, I think that
although the studios will definitely attempt to appeal this, the High Court
may well refuse to hear it.

While I agree with the decision, I think that ISPs do make money from piracy -
honestly, in practice, what are most of the massive data plans (180GB per
month) used for...? I've met a few people who have every game/movie that comes
out. They don't actually play or watch them though, I think it's more a
collector impulse. <http://www.iinet.net.au/broadband/plans.html>

_disclaimer_ iinet is my ISP

------
jrockway
My jaw dropped after I read the first few words: "The Australian film and
television industry has lost a case."

------
zmimon
> Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review
> the laws surrounding copyright infringement

Ominous.

~~~
pyre
No necessarily. These people are always 'confident' that they will get their
way, but I'm sure all but a very few of them are pragmatic behind closed
doors. It's just playing to the media circus; creating an image for the
general public.

------
tjmc
The Federal Court summary is here:
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html>

The judge's grasp of the issues came as a pleasant surprise to me. He
summarizes the entire judgement in para 21:

"In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise
copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for
three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as
a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and
the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system;
second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those
infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction,
approve or countenance copyright infringement."

------
JacobAldridge
Judiciary down. Executive and Legislative to go.

~~~
Groxx
I dunno. I think this was a fluke in how educated the judge was.

Do you really expect lightning to strike the same place twice? Much less three
times? The odds are significantly worse in those two branches, methinks.

