Thursday 10:10am (4th February 2010)
Sanity prevails: iiNet win landmark case against Guilt Upon Accusation in Australia..According to people on Twitter (who are never wrong) the Judge has ruled that iiNet were not guilty in the landmark case about Guilt Upon Accusation in Australia. In 2008 AFACT, a cousin of NZFACT, accused iiNet of allowing infringement, saying they “had ignored requests from the companies to discipline its customers for breaking copyright laws" iiNet said that they "cannot disconnect a customer's phone line based on an allegation. The alleged offence needs to be pursued by the police and proven in the courts" The Judge has been quoted saying that "I find that iiNet simply can't be seen as approving infringement" and "the mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement". AFACT has been ordered to pay iiNets court costs. The EFA say that this decision protects internet users whereas others simply say that Film industry's case was torn to shreds.
Judge Cowdroy says in his ruling,
In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the user 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.
For more information see the Wikipedia page on iiNet vs. AFACT
Update: iiNet's very restrained press release (PDF)
Update (later that day) The Judge's ruling.
Michael Geist's analysis: Why Three Strikes Isn't Reasonable
TechDirt calls it "another victory for common sense"
Update (the next day): Brenda Wallace has her analysis of the verdict
