We Come From A Sunburnt Country

Federal Court of Australia: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited

vruz:

—via Groklaw

[..]

• The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants’ films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that ‘something must be done’ to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement.
• The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts. In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.
• 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.

vruz:  this ruling is significative, because it puts the burden of defending copyrights on the corporations who can’t use the power of the state to do their job for them.  at least in Australia.  it’s obviously not written in the ruling, but the little studio who can’t afford litigation have probably been affected too, and they have never asked the state to ‘do something’, they’ve just found ways to become smarter and profitable. haven’t you seen corporations using their power to use the state as their private police before ?  haven’t you heard about the ‘something must be done’ doctrine before?  typically neoconservative/fascistic/corporatist ‘argument’ to prevent the world from changing, or mitigating their own failure.