|
''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 BitTorrent.〔(iiNet sued over BitTorrent piracy ), ''20 November 2008''. Retrieved 23 January 2009〕 The trial court delivered judgment on 4 February 2010, dismissing the application and awarding costs to iiNet.〔(【引用サイトリンク】accessdate=4 February 2010 )〕 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. ==Background== The case against iiNet was filed on 20 November 2008.〔(Notice of Filing and Hearing in the Federal Court of Australia ). Retrieved 23 January 2009〕〔 (''Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited'' ) () Federal Court of Australia 24 at () 〕 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," The film companies' representative, AFACT, had conducted investigations into peer-to-peer-file-sharing network BitTorrent and found evidence that iiNet users had infringed the film companies' copyright. As of July 2008, AFACT sent notices to iiNet, providing information that iiNet users were using BitTorrent to infringe the copyright of the film companies.〔(''Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited'' ) () Federal Court of Australia 24〕 However, those notices had not enclosed AFACT's methodology. AFACT requested that iiNet prevent its users from infringing copyright through the suspension or termination of accounts of relevant users. The ISP did not act on AFACT's request, stating that, while copyright infringement was not approved, iiNet was not liable to take action on the basis of allegations. On a directions hearing on 6 February 2009 AFACT claimed that the three major issues were; whether iiNet authorized the acts of infringement, whether iiNet was liable for the actions of its customers and whether the safe harbor provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 protected iiNet. In February 2009, iiNet revealed that it had received legal assistance from its competitor, Telstra. In March 2009, Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy commented on iiNet's defence. Conroy said in response to iiNet as having "no idea if any customers are illegally downloading music" that this defence was "stunning" and "a classic". The Shadow Communications Minister Nick Minchin criticised the Minister for publicly discussing an active case and suggested he was deflecting attention away from proposed mandatory internet filtering. More than A$1 million was paid to iiNet for legal costs in developing a defence that was not needed after AFACT made an adjustment to their claim. AFACT removed a claim called conversion which suggested iiNet was using copyright to its own advantage by allegedly allowing customers to illegally download copyrighted material. These changes also delayed the court case because iiNet was awarded more time to amend their defence. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|