That's an interesting point boomerbust. My short opinion is: no,...

That's an interesting point boomerbust. My short opinion is: no, iinet wouldn't be held responsible by the customer for not having passed on the claim because there is a warning on iinets sight telling the customer that downloading copyright protected content is illegal— so the customer knows what they are doing is wrong. But that's just how I would see it, I'm not a lawyer or a judge.

In the iinet case AFACT used another case in its defense in which a University was found guilty in a copyright case because it allowed students to use its copy machines to copy books—and also supplied the books. I wouldn't have thought the University would have lost that case but it did. (But that University case may have been different because in the iinet case iinet doesn't supply the movies.

(I imagine in the University case that teachers actually told students to photo copy chapters of books from the library instead of requiring them to buy the books— to save money. I'm a teacher and I know that is what teachers do, I do it.)