<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Australian ISP iiNET has defended a copyright infringement case brought against it by a group of 34 applicants (See below) representing the major motion picture studios in Australia and the United States.\r\n\r\nThe group, operating under the name \u201CAustralian Federation Against Copyright Theft\u201D \u00A0(AFACT) claimed that by allowing bit torrent traffic that infringed copyright, iiNET was in fact infringing copyright themselves.\r\n\r\nTo explain this a little further here is the Federal Court's summary of the purpose of the proceedings:\r\n\u201CThis proceeding raises the question whether an internet service provider or ISP authorises the infringement of\u00A0copyright of its users or subscribers when they download cinematograph films in a manner\u00A0which infringes copyright. In Australian copyright law, a person who authorises the infringement of\u00A0copyright is treated\u00A0as if they themselves infringed copyright directly. \u201C\r\n\r\n\r\nAfter the case, which commenced in November 2008, was completed\u00A0the Court determined that iiNET had not, in fact, infringed copyright law.\r\n\r\nJustice Cowdry's summary (of his summary) was this:\r\nIn this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet\u00A0authorise 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\u00A0the 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.\r\nYou can get the full summary of his decision here .\r\n\r\nClearly this is a massive win for ISPs all over the world and for Internet users too. Not because of the fact that copyright infringement has been permitted\u00A0(It hasn\u2019t) but because of the massive costs and restrictions that would have been passed\u00A0onto\u00A0consumers had a decision been returned that ISPs were in fact responsible for unauthorised infringements on their network.\r\n\r\nIt seems like the world has returned to normal for a bit (until the certain appeal occurs...).\r\n\r\nCheers to the Australian Legal System!\r\n\r\n\u00A0\r\n\r\nTHE APPLICANTS\r\n\r\n\u00A0\r\n\r\n\tUNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP\r\n\tPARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION\r\n\tWARNER\u00A0BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.\r\n\tDISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.\r\n\tCOLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC\r\n\tTWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION\r\n\tPARAMOUNT HOME ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD\r\n\tBUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC.\r\n\tTWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED\r\n\tUNIVERSAL PICTURES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD\r\n\tVILLAGE ROADSHOW FILMS (BVI) LTD\r\n\tUNIVERSAL PICTURES INTERNATIONAL B.V\r\n\tUNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP\r\n\tRINGERIKE\u00A0GMBH &amp;amp;amp; CO KG\r\n\tINTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUKTION\u00A0BLACKBIRD VIERTE\u00A0GMBH &amp;amp;amp; CO KG\r\n\tMDBF\u00A0ZWEITE\u00A0FILMGESELLSCHAFT\u00A0MBH &amp;amp;amp; CO KG\r\n\tINTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUCKTION\u00A0RICHTER\u00A0GMBH &amp;amp;amp; CO KG\r\n\tNBC STUDIOS, INC\r\n\tDREAMWORKS FILMS L.L.C\r\n\tWARNER\u00A0BROS INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC\r\n\tTWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL \u00A0CORPORATION\r\n\tWARNER\u00A0HOME VIDEO PTY LTD\r\n\tPATALEX III PRODUCTIONS LIMITED\r\n\tLONELY FILM PRODUCTIONS GMBH &amp;amp;amp; CO KG\r\n\tSONY PICTURES ANIMATION INC\r\n\tUNIVERSAL STUDIOS INTERNATIONAL B.V.\r\n\tSONY\u00A0PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD\r\n\tGH ONE LLC\r\n\tGH THREE LLC\r\n\tBEVERLY\u00A0BLVD LLC\r\n\tWARNER\u00A0BROS\u00A0ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD\r\n\tTWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC\r\n\tSEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LTD\r\n"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://thenextweb.com/au/2010/02/04/australian-isp-wins-milestone-piracy-case-hollywood-heavyweights/>