AFACT v iiNet
| Roadshow Films v iiNet | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Ltd |
| Decided | 20 April 2012 |
| Citation(s) | [2012] HCA 16, (2012) 248 CLR 42 |
| Transcript(s) |
[2011] HCATrans 210 (12 August 2011) - special leave [2011] HCATrans 311 (10 November 2011) [2011] HCATrans 323 (30 November 2011) [2011] HCATrans 324 (1 December 2011) [2011] HCATrans 325 (2 December 2011) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennen and Kiefel JJ |
| Roadshow Films v iiNet | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Court | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Ltd |
| Decided | 24 February 2011 |
| Citation(s) | [2011] FCAFC 23 |
| Case opinions | |
|
(2:1) A refusal by an ISP to act on infringement allegations made by or on behalf of a copyright owner is not credible evidence that suggests authorisation might have been inferred. (per Emmett and Nicholas JJ; Jagot J dissenting) |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Emmett, Jagot and Nicholas JJ |
| Roadshow Films v iiNet | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Court | Federal Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Ltd |
| Decided | 4 February 2010 |
| Citation(s) | [2010] FCA 24 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Cowdroy J |
(2:1) A refusal by an ISP to act on infringement allegations made by or on behalf of a copyright owner is not credible evidence that suggests authorisation might have been inferred.
(per Emmett and Nicholas JJ;
Jagot J dissenting)
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & others v iiNet Ltd (commonly known as AFACT v iiNet) was a case in the Federal and High Courts of Australia between members of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and other movie and television studios and iiNet, Australia's second-largest Internet service provider (ISP). The alliance of 34 companies unsuccessfully claimed that iiNet authorised primary copyright infringement by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from downloading and sharing infringing copies of films and television programs using .
The trial court delivered judgment on 4 February 2010, dismissing the application and awarding costs to iiNet. An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed by Emmett and Nicholas JJ (Jagot J dissenting). A subsequent appeal to the High Court was unanimously dismissed on 20 April 2012.
This case is important in Australian copyright law because it tests copyright law changes required in the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement, and set a precedent for future law suits about the responsibility of Australian Internet service providers with regards to copyright infringement via their services.
The case against iiNet was filed on 20 November 2008. Speaking on behalf of Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc., the Seven Network and others, AFACT claimed that iiNet "had ignored requests from the companies to discipline its customers for breaking copyright laws." The managing director of iiNet, Michael Malone, claimed that "iiNet 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. iiNet would then be able to disconnect the service as it had been proven that the customer had breached our Customer Relations Agreement,"
...
Wikipedia