Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 FEBRUARY 2010

Users, not ISPs, liable for copyright infringement after iiNet decision

Clayton Utz
Explore more from Clayton Utz

Internet service provider (ISP) iiNet landmark decision: not liable for providing access.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
John Fairbairn
John Fairbairn
Timothy Webb
Timothy Webb
Author LinkedIn connections

Today's landmark copyright decision in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24 is a welcome one for internet service providers (ISPs). It means that an ISP will not be liable for copyright infringement merely for providing access to the internet, even when it has knowledge of copyright infringement by its customers and does not take steps to stop it occurring.

iiNet, an Australian ISP, had been served with notices by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), alleging that iiNet's customers were infringing the copyright of the major film studios - specifically by sharing and downloading films and TV shows via the BitTorrent peer-to-peer protocol.

The copyright owners and their exclusive licensees then launched legal action against iiNet, alleging that it had authorised its users' copyright infringement.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Controlled Foreign Company rules - UK:

In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.(CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia