SYDNEY —
Top Hollywood film studios Friday failed in their attempt to stem the flow of
illegal downloads when they lost a landmark appeal against an Australian
Internet provider.
 |
A group of
34 companies, including
Warner Bros and Disney, alleged iiNet
authorised the
infringement of their
copyright (AFP, Jean-Pierre Muller)
|
A group of
international and Australian companies, including Warner Bros, Disney and 20th
Century Fox, alleged that iiNet authorised the infringement of their copyright
when its customers downloaded movies and television programmes.
In a
world-first judgement in 2010, Australia's Federal Court ruled iiNet did not
authorise the downloads or have the power to stop them, thwarting the studios'
attempt to staunch losses they say run into billions of dollars.
The
Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), made up of 34 film,
television and music companies, appealed, claiming it set a dangerous precedent
that allowed Internet companies to ignore copyright theft.
But in a
serious blow to their fight against piracy it was thrown out by Australia's
highest court Friday.
"The
High Court held that the respondent, an Internet service provider (ISP), had
not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright
in commercially released films and television programmes," the unanimous
ruling said.
It added that
iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the
BitTorrent file sharing system to infringe copyright, by downloading content to
watch on their laptops and PCs.
"Rather,
the extent of iiNet's power to prevent its customers from infringing...
copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual
relationship with its customers," the court said.
The case
was seen as an ambitious attempt to force ISPs to act against piracy.
It hinged
on thousands of downloads over the Perth-based iiNet network over 59 weeks from
June 2008 involving nearly 90 films and TV series including "Batman
Begins", "Transformers" and "Heroes".
The movie
studios had hoped to set a worldwide precedent forcing ISPs to act against
offenders, while Internet rights groups feared it would compel the firms to cut
customers' web access without having to take them to court.
AFACT
managing director Neil Gane said the judgement exposed the failure of copyright
law to keep pace with the online environment.
"Both
judgements in this case recognise that copyright law is no longer equipped to
deal with the rate of technological change we have seen since the law of
authorisation was last tested," he said.
Gane added
that the global film and television industry, represented by the Los
Angeles-based Motion Picture Association, was pursuing other avenues including
targeting the software developers behind BitTorrent technology.
iiNet chief
executive Michael Malone said the best way for the film industry to protect copyright
was to boost the availability of lawful, online content in a more timely and
affordable way.
He added
that there was strong evidence that content partnerships and agreements between
ISPs, legal websites and copyright holders was the best way to reduce piracy,
rather than costly legal battles.
"Increasing
the availability of licensed digital content is the best, most practical
approach to meet consumer demand and protect copyright," Malone said.
"We
have consistently said we are eager to work with the studios to make their very
desirable material legitimately available to a waiting customer base and that
offer remains the same today."
Related Article:
No comments:
Post a Comment