More tasty bits from the judgement
Other interesting bits from the judgement include an observation, at section 116, that by suggesting iiNet had a duty of care to act on its evidence, AFACT was asking for an awful lot.
“... the width of the terms in which the proposed duty is cast would present iiNet and other ISPs with an uncertain legal standard for the conduct of their operations,” the judgement says. “Further, as counsel for Alliance submitted, this would achieve for copyright owners, but at the expense of the ISP, the suspension or disconnection by their ISP of subscribers from the internet, a remedy which would not be available to the copyright owners were they themselves to sue the subscriber
The court also found, at section 64, that “iiNet had no direct technical power at its disposal to prevent a customer from using the BitTorrent system to download the appellants' films.” One reason the court felt iiNet could not prevent torrenting was that while each iiNet customer has one dynamically-assigned IP address, it is impossible to identify which of possible multiple users was conducting illegal downloads. ®
Re: First line of article:
"in part, on inadequacies in Australia's Copyright Act that may need to be dealt with by Australia's Parliament."
What, you mean like the inadequacies that exist in our other laws, such as 'You can't hold a car manufacturer responsible if their car is used in a hold-up" or "You can't even hold a GUN manufacturer responsible if someone shoots someone" - they aren't laws, but basic principles of common law.
I can't see how a company can claim 'piracy' anyway - it implies loss of income; if they aren't even selling this to Australians how the hell can they claim loss of income?
The High Court made the right decision, NOT due to inadequacies (in whose view? Hollywood's?) in our law, but in spite of them! Our High Court is actually well known for mostly getting things RIGHT, likely because it is a 6-person panel, not a single judge.
> this would achieve for copyright owners, but at the expense of the ISP, the suspension or disconnection by their ISP of subscribers from the internet, a remedy which would not be available to the copyright owners were they themselves to sue the subscriber
Isn't the whole aim of the court-case to bypass the courts so the copyright owners don't have to bother suing?
And they still haven't fixed the issue of "we had a gaming lan party at my house - who knows whose machine was hosting the torrents, or even whose account on the host the torrents were running under?" The rigor of law is there for a very good reason. This is not the same as saying you lent your car to someone and they ran a speed trap. There are plenty of reasons why you may not know what software is on your network, even a small home one.
Sorry, but that is the wrong way to do things. Commercial contract agreements are not a substitute for (criminal?) law. What happens to bundled services? Do they cut off your phone too? Foxtel as well? Who picks up the cost of the differential, given that nothing has been proved in court? Is this a cheap way to get out of a contract lock-in?
The whole attempt was a bucket of fail. Not just fail in execution, but fail in concept. It is not the way the law should work.
Mike is dead on when he talks about legal content, most of what is "pirated" can't be obtained in a legal manner, if Big Content took away the stupid country based filtering on services like Hulu and even more disgusting blocking purchases on sites like Amazon they'd see an increase in sales and a drop in piracy...
If you aren't selling, why are you bitching when people pirate?