On February 24, in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd. & Ors v. iiNet Ltd., No. NSD179/2010, [2011] FCAFC 23, the Federal Court of Australia Full Court dismissed an appeal by a bevy of international movie and entertainment companies against the decision of the primary judge that the Internet service provider iiNet Ltd had not infringed the companies’ copyrights when iiNet’s customers had illegally downloaded the companies’ content. In a lengthy opinion that analyzed numerous provisions of Australian law, the Full Court found it to be “common ground that there have been primary infringements of the copyrights of the Copyright Owners by use by iiNet users of services provided by iiNet.” The Court went, however to state that “while the evidence supports a conclusion that iiNet demonstrated a dismissive and, indeed, contumelious, attitude to the complaints of infringement by the use of its services, its conduct did not amount to authorisation of the primary acts of infringement on the part of iiNet users.”
This post was originally published on the legacy ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Notice and Comment blog, which merged with the Yale Journal on Regulation Notice and Comment blog in 2015.
On February 24, in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd. & Ors v. iiNet Ltd., No. NSD179/2010, [2011] FCAFC 23, the Federal Court of Australia Full Court dismissed an appeal by a bevy of international movie and entertainment companies against the decision of the primary judge that the Internet service provider iiNet Ltd had not infringed the companies’ copyrights when iiNet’s customers had illegally downloaded the companies’ content. In a lengthy opinion that analyzed numerous provisions of Australian law, the Full Court found it to be “common ground that there have been primary infringements of the copyrights of the Copyright Owners by use by iiNet users of services provided by iiNet.” The Court went, however to state that “while the evidence supports a conclusion that iiNet demonstrated a dismissive and, indeed, contumelious, attitude to the complaints of infringement by the use of its services, its conduct did not amount to authorisation of the primary acts of infringement on the part of iiNet users.”
This post was originally published on the legacy ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Notice and Comment blog, which merged with the Yale Journal on Regulation Notice and Comment blog in 2015.