iiNet High Court of Australia Decison - iiNet Wins

The High Court of Australia today handed down judgment in favour of iiNet in the copyright appeal, dealing with whether an ISP should be liable for copyright infringements of the ISP's customers.  Unanimous dismissal. French, Crennan and Kiefel in one judgment and separate judgment of Gummow and Hayne also dismissing appeal.

"Today the High Court dismissed an appeal by a number of film and television companies from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programs."

Summary:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf

Judgment:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html

My commentary in The Age

Class 7: Liability of intermediatories and ISPs

This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?

Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?

This is a very topical class, with a number of relevant decisions from the past two weeks.  Thus, there is a lot of reading for this class.

The main reading for the class is the iiNet case:

• Trial Judge Decision
• Full Court Appeal Decision

The iiNet case is currently on appeal to the High Court of Australia.  Oral argument has been heard, and we are waiting for judgment.  It is reported that judgment will be handed down on Friday, 20 April.  Transcripts and written submissions can be found on the High Court website.

Please also read the very recent case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49 decided last week; and compare UK position summarised here.

Also, read the following:

• MegaUpLoad and Kim Dotcom indictment; and users trying to get access to their data and MegaRetrevial
• Viacom v. Google decided by the Second Circuit on 5 April 2012; and see note here (and older notes here: YouTube and note and Summary Judgment)
• Bunt case
• Cooper case
• ACCC v Allergy Pathways and ACCC Press Release
• Stratton Oakmont and follow-up
• Communications Decency Act section 230
• TripAdvisor: Terms; Restaurant Gives Up; tips; and Findlaw note; and another lawsuit
• DMCA - Unintended Consequences White Paper

Week 7: Liability of ISPs and Infrastructure Providers

This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?

Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?

The main reading for the class is the iiNet case:

• Trial Judge Decision
• Full Court Appeal Decision

Also, read the following:

• Bunt case
• Cooper case
• ACCC v Allergy Pathways and ACCC Press Release
• Stratton Oakmont and follow-up
• Communications Decency Act section 230
• Google's liability for AdWords
• YouTube and note and Summary Judgment
• TripAdvisor: Terms; Restaurant Gives Up; tips; and Findlaw note

iiNet copyright case - Full Federal Court Appeal Decision

iiNet succeeded in its appeal, but on narrower grounds. The case concerns whether an ISP is liable for copyright infringement of its users.

See case, and SMH article, and ZDnet

ISP Liaibility

The main reading for the class on Monday, 24 May is the iiNet case:

• decision
• case note
• iiNet press release
• Appeal lodged

Also: The Bunt case

High level note