The Federal Court in Australia has given a huge victory to an ISP that fought back against Hollywood.
Justice Cowdroy’s procedure is as follows:
*
The key question was: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.
*
I will now make my formal orders, said Justice Cowdroy. He said that for the reasons provided in the written judgment he would be making the following orders.
*The Amended Application would be dismissed.
*Subject to Order 3 and 4, the Applicants would pay the costs of the Respondent, including costs thrown away as a result of the Applicants’ abandoning the primary infringement claim against the Respondent.
*Any party or person applying for an order for costs different to that provided by Order 2 is to notify the Court within 14 days in which event Order 2 would be vacated and in lieu (instead)costs would be reserved.
*If any application for costs is made as provided in Order 3 the parties and/or persons were to consult and prepare consent directions for the filing of submissions and, if required, for a hearing on costs.
*Also referred to the trial was a 636 paragraphs (period ) of length and extremely detailed in its factual and legal analysis.
