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
- Forums
- General
- defamation case part 2. fluffy, fyi..
defamation case part 2. fluffy, fyi.., page-53
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
WCE
WEST COAST SILVER LIMITED
Bruce Garlick, Executive Chairman
Bruce Garlick
Executive Chairman
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online