Posts Tagged ‘ iinet ’
Justice Cowdroy’s decision in Roadshow v iiNet held that a person who provides facilities that are used for infringement but does not play a more active part — for example by intentionally designing the system to profit, or providing facilities in circumstances where there are only limited non-infringing uses, or explicitly inviting or promoting the [ READ MORE ]
The ‘means’ of infringement: tracing a line through Moorhouse, Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa (via Sony) The iiNet judgment traces an interesting line through authorisation liability in the context of technology cases. Cowdroy reads the technology authorisation cases (Moorhouse, Australian Tape Manufacturers, Cooper, and Kazaa) as predicating liability firstly upon whether the defendant has provided [ READ MORE ]
[ edit: full decision is now available: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24. More commentary to come. ] More analysis on iiNet, after I have seen the written summary of the judgment. Justice Cowdroy found that iiNet did not ‘authorise’ the infringements of its users. In coming to this [ READ MORE ]
This week I was interviewed by Phil Dobbie for ZDNet's Twisted Wire program. Also interviewed were Peter Coroneos from the Internet Industry Association and Adrianne Pecotic from AFACT. You can listen to the podcast (direct link (mp3)). One thing I found disturbing about this interview was AFACT's suggestion that the law was clear and that [ READ MORE ]
Not really pirates. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is one of Disney's films at the centre of the law suit. Image © Disney. As you may have heard, the movie industry has sued iiNet for copyright infringement. iiNet have responded that they will 'vigourously defend' the case. EFA released a press release here. [ READ MORE ]