defamation case part 2. fluffy, fyi.., page-53

  1. 182 Posts.
    It was AFACT vs iinet.

    An excerpt ..

    "But after an on-and-off eight-week trial that examined whether iiNet authorised customers to download pirated movies, Justice Dennis Cowdroy found that the ISP was not liable for the downloading habits of its customers.

    In a summary of his 200-page judgment read out in court this morning, Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no more than to provide an internet service to its users.


    He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a finding of authorisation.

    He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright."

    Full story

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html

    Mandi
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.