Posts Tagged ‘iinet’

iiNet not responsible for customers’ infringing acts says Australia High Court

April 20th, 2012

The High Court of Australia released its decision in the Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2012] HCA 16 (20 April 2012) case earlier today. The panel of five judges, in two sets of reasons, dismissed the appeal from the Full Court. That court held that, on the facts of the case, iiNet, an Australian ISP, was not liable for authorising the infringing acts of its customers.

The key question in the appeal, was whether iiNet authorised its customers’ infringing acts. According to the Court, the key facts on which liability was premised were the following:

Technological change and copyright

September 6th, 2011

I gave a talk earlier today at Osgoode to the students enrolled in Osgoode’s IP Intensive Program. The topic focused on the impacts of technological change on copyright. My slides are set out below.

UN report on internet disconnection flawed and contrary to jurisprudence

June 13th, 2011

Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom  of opinion and expression released a controversial report in which he stated he was

“alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet  access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the  concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright  infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes-law” in France  and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.”

iiNet court backs reasonableness of graduated response to stop illegal file sharing

March 8th, 2011

Last week the Australian Full Court released its decision in the landmark case Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited, [2011] FCAFC 23. The Australian appeals court by majority dismissed the appeal from the decision of the primary judge who had held that iiNet, an ISP in Australia that had not acted on any information provided to it by copyright owners, was not liable for authorizing the copyright infringement of its subscribers who had used its facilities to engage in unlicensed peer to peer file sharing.