Judges once again rule that iiNet isn’t responsible for customers illegally downloading copyrighted material. Conclude that BitTorrent System and not iiNet’s network is what’s to blame, for file-sharers need to employ additional tools to make infringement possible.

Aussie ISP iiNet has once again successfully defended itself from accusations that it was actively involved in copyright infringement for refusing to prevent its customers from being able to engage in illegal file-sharing on its network.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), on behalf of Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network, first sued iiNet back in 2008.
It lost that first trial, but vowed to appeal, and it was the appeal before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that it suffered another defeat.
“The primary judge concluded that there was no authorisation by iiNet of the acts of infringement that were committed by iiNet users,” reads the ruling.
The judges disagreed with AFACT’s assertion that iiNet’s network was responsible for the infringement, concluding that the ‘BitTorrent System” is what’s to blame. Without BitTorrent the network wouldn’t have made infringement possible.
The ruling continues:
The primary judge considered that the use of the BitTorrent System as a whole was not just a precondition to infringement but was, in a very real sense, the means by which copyright was infringed by iiNet users. There was no evidence of infringement occurring, other than by the use of the BitTorrent System, and iiNet users could not have infringed copyright in the way they did from the mere use of the services provided by iiNet in providing access to the internet. Rather, there must always be an additional tool employed. Absent the BitTorrent System, the infringements that occurred could not have occurred. His Honour concluded, therefore, that it was not something provided by iiNet, but the use of the BitTorrent System as a whole, that was the means by which copyright was infringed by iiNet users and that the provision by iiNet of its internet service did not, by itself, result in the infringements in question.
iiNet is pleased with the decision, and only wishes that copyright holders like the movie industry plaintiffs in the case would focus on meeting the consumer demand that piracy satisfies in the absence of legal alternatives.
“We urge the Australian film industry to address the growing demand for studio content to be delivered in a timely and cost effective manner to consumers and we remain eager to work with them to make this material available legitimately,” said Michael Malone, CEO of iiNet, in a press release.
Malone also pointed out that AFACT has spent nearly two years and millions of dollars for an effort that hasn’t stopped one person from downloading content illegally.
“”We’ve won at the lower court, we’ve won at the Federal Court now in the appeal, but all this legal action hasn’t stopped one customer from downloading anywhere in Australia,” he added.
AFACT is expected to be appeal the case to the High Court.


Source