Over 80 professionals with one goal: protecting your IP

Our focus on patents, trade marks and other intellectual property means that we offer our clients an unparalleled depth of knowledge and a complete suite of IP services.

Why it matters »

Stay informed

Sign up for our quarterly IP Update e-Mag and keep on top of the latest IP news and cases.

Read the lastest issue »
See past issues »

Roadshow Films appeals iiNet copyright decision to the High Court

By and | Monday, March 28, 2011

Following on from last month's loss in the Full Federal Court against Australian internet service provider iiNet,1 Roadshow Films and other members of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) have applied for special leave to appeal the copyright decision to the High Court.

On 24 February 2011 the Full Federal Court held, by a 2-1 majority, that iiNet had not authorised copyright infringement by failing to take action against its customers who were using the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute pirated films.  Justices Emmett and Nicholas held that the copyright owners had not provided iiNet with enough information to enable iiNet to verify the accuracy of the claims, or to warrant iiNet taking further steps such as threatening to suspend or terminate customers' accounts if the infringing conduct did not stop. 

Notwithstanding the majority finding that iiNet was not liable for authorisation of infringement, all three of the Judges hearing the appeal were critical of iiNet's conduct.  Justice Emmett foreshadowed that if copyright owners provided more detailed information and offered to bear the ISP's costs of taking action against infringers, iiNet or another internet service provider might be found liable for authorising copyright infringement if it continued to ignore take-down notices from copyright owners.2

The special leave application is likely to be heard by the High Court later this year.

Endnotes

  1. Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited[2011] FCAFC 23 (24 February 2011)
  2. At [210] and [274]

Filed under: Legal briefing IP Law Copyright Info & Comms Tech Litigation