This morning the twitterverse was abuzz with the news that iiNet had won the cast AFACT brought against them. It was found that ISPs are not responsible for what users use them for.
Nice to see you can’t punish ISPs for hearsay copyright infringement notices.
Now, can the same be applied to what users view? ie. why should ISPs be responsible for filtering Internet content?
A collection of interesting articles about the AFACT vs iiNet case.
- Sanity prevails: iiNet did not authorise its users’ infringements (Nic, EFA, 4 Feb 2010)
- iiNet wins video piracy trial (Renai LeMay, Delimiter, 4 Feb 2010)
- AFACT v iiNet: Statement in full from the losing party (NewTechnica, 4 Feb 2010)
A humorous interpretation of events after the ruling was announced.
- Document: Judge’s summary of iiNet trial (Ben Grubb, ZDNet.com.au, 4 Feb 2010)
- Pirate Party Australia Welcomes Decision In IiNet Trial (Pirate Party, 4 Feb 2010)
- iiTrial: Telstra welcomes “legal clarity” (Renai LeMay, Delimiter, 4 Feb 2010)
- Mixed reaction to iiNet ruling (SBS, 4 Feb 2010)
- iiNet outcome an “application of common sense”: EFF (Tim Lohman, Computerworld, 4 Feb 2010)
- An attempt to cast a pall over internet usage (Robert Corr, 4 Feb 2010)
A summary of points the author thought were important in the 200 page judgement.
- Piracy case to shake up global fight (Bronwyn Herbert and Tim Leslie, ABC News, 2 Feb 2010)
At the start sounds like it assumes that all users are pirates, but has some useful comments further down.