[Chapter-delegates] Australian court rules in favour of Internet service provider

[Joly MacFie]

Hi Narelle

This ruling is naturally causing a buzz and I already posted it on the
ISOC-NY noticeboard
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=331

I've added your comments and links, for which I am grateful.

The main impetus for the case seemed to be that AFACT got angry
because iiNet refused to serve the "alleged" infringement notices on
their users, but instead would forward them to the cops.

In court AFACT did win one point where iiNet had to admit that the of
the infringements were proven rather than alleged, nevertheless iiNet
had it in their terms of use that repeated infringement could get
users busted, which was sufficient to maintain safe harbor status.

The key word, and this may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
was "authorise" - iiNet in no way authorised illegal activity. In many
places merely "contributing" is sufficient to fall foul of statutes,
am I wrong?

joly

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Narelle <narellec at gmail.com> wrote:
> All
> In Nov 2008 a group film industry players lodged a claim against an
> Australian ISP arguing it had infringed copyright by not cutting off
> users downloading copyright material.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------