Courts diverge on ISP liability

01 March 2010

Recent rulings demonstrate range of views on the liability of ISPs for copyright infringement

Peter Ollier, Hong Kong and Emma Barraclough and James Nurton, London

The World Wide Web may be global but a series of recent rulings from Australia to Italy have underscored the local nature of the laws that govern the internet service providers (ISPs) that allow us to go online.

Last month an Australian internet service provider claimed victory against a coalition of film companies in a landmark case dealing with liability for online copyright infringement.

In a 125-page decision handed down on February 4, the Australian Federal Court found that internet service provider iiNet has not authorised the file-sharing carried out by its customers using the BitTorrent.

"Simply put, this decision is akin to saying that merely selling a photocopier is not infringing copyright, but having that photocopier available to copy material for commercial gain is," said Andrew Wiseman, a partner of Allens Arthur Robinson.

In November 2008, a coalition...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements