I Spy with My Little IP - An IP Address Not Enough to Identify Copyright Infringer, Says US Court of Appeals

The identification of infringers of intellectual property is incredibly important in order to mount a proper and, above all, fair prosecution of those who are infringing on your rights. This is, however, exceedingly difficult in the Internet age, where the person downloading a movie, for example, is difficult to tell from a household of four, let alone the swathes of nameless ‘individuals’ occupying Internet services. The IP address of a given for each computer, identifying them separately in a network when connected to it, has long been one way of distinguishing the infringers from other users. The protocol still has its issues in certainty, and therefore, is it a reliable piece of evidence when establishing liability? The US Court of Appeals took on this question not long ago.

The case of Cobbler Nevada LLC v Thomas Gonzales concerned the movie ‘The Cobbler’, for which Cobbler Nevada owned the copyrights to. Due to its popularity, the movie was swiftly shared on many websites online using the BitTorrent protocol. Cobbler Nevada identified one IP address in Nevada which downloaded and distributed the movie without authorization, later further identified as being Mr Gonzales’ internet service. The connection, however, was a freely accessible one, which was used by both residents and visitors at an adult care home. Legal counsel for Cobbler Nevada determined that they were unable to confirm that Mr Gonzales was the infringer in question. Nevertheless the company filed a complaint against him, alleging they copied and distributed the work online, basing this on the fact that he was the subscriber of the IP address used to do so.

The crux of the matter is whether the IP address used in the matter is enough to prove that Mr Gonzales had indeed been the infringing party. The Court correctly highlighted that “…a particular IP address (i.e., an account holder)… does not mean that the internet subscriber is also the infringer… simply establishing an account does not mean the subscriber is even accessing the internet, and multiple devices can access the internet under the same IP address”. This fact is further exacerbated by the fact that many people were able to freely access the connection at the location.

Cobbler Nevada promptly moved to more traditional
identification methods

The US court have firmly established that, for a claim to be established, you “…must show… the defendant himself violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights”. The Court quickly determined that Cobbler Nevada had not done so in this case. As discussed above, their internal investigations yielded no confirmed result, and clearly led to unsubstantiated allegations of infringement. The claim was later amended to simply refer to the IP address and no particular defendant, which still left the claim with no clearly identified infringer.

The second claim revolved around contributory infringement, i.e. that Mr Gonzales had encouraged or facilitated the infringing activities using his network connection. To put into more concrete terms: "...one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another". Cobbler Nevada claimed that Mr Gonzales had failed to adequately police his Internet connection, especially in the light of several notices sent to him regarding the matter. The Court, yet again, dismissed this allegation out of hand, as the perfunctory allegation does not sufficiently link him to the alleged infringement. The courts have previously denied contributory liability merely through the possibility of the use of a technology to infringe in Sony Corporation v Universal City Studios (more on which here), which similarly would apply to an open Internet network.

Contributory infringement requires two strands of liability: (i) actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts; or (ii) distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of ‘substantial’ or ‘commercially significant’ non-infringing uses.

Cobbler Nevada lacked any allegations that Mr Gonzales had infringed along the first strand. They had done no acts to encourage anyone to infringe any rights, or materially contributed to the same. Similarly his Internet service was not capable of distributing a product or service that is not capable of substantial or significant non-infringing uses. The Court noted that Internet service owners should not have an affirmative duty to actively monitor their Internet connection.

The Court ultimately dismissed Cobbler Nevada's claim.

The case is an important milestone in establishing firmer rules of identification on the Internet. Should we simply use the closes possible approximator of liability we could expose swathes of people to direct or indirect liability, which is clearly not the intention of the legislation. While the lack of certainty in using IP addresses to identify potential infringers has been established before, this is an important reminder of the fact. Even so, infringers could face liability when identified via an IP address, so the decision is by no means absolution for the wicked.

Copyright Mutiny - The Pirate Bay is Communicating Works to the Public, says CJEU

Internet piracy has become a very common thing in the 21st century, and websites providing access to infringing materials, specifically torrent files, are booming. While these sites don't host material themselves, they provide links to files shared by the users themselves, potentially therefore facilitating this action. Rightsholders have, arguably rightfully so, been irate about this sharing of content, and have sought to challenge and shut down these websites. A case has been raging in Europe for some time (discussed more here), with both rightsholders and website hosts undoubtedly waiting for its conclusion, which is finally here after the CJEU handed down its judgment in mid-June.

By way of a short primer, the case of Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV concerns the communication to the public of copyright protected works. In the matter, Stichting Brein, a foundation that protects the interests of copyright holders, took two of ISPs to court seeking to force them to block access to the website The Pirate Bay (TBP). The site, for those unfamiliar with it, gives access to both torrent and magnet files, both of which are used in the facilitation of P2P connections, linking to particular files on the computers of users sharing those files, downloading them in small parts from the users as a collective. The CJEU therefore had to determine whether the ISPs could be compelled to block access to TBP.

As discussed above the matter hinged on whether TBP communicated the works to the public under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive. With this, the Dutch Supreme Court sought answers to two questions.

The first question, as summarized by the CJEU, asked "… whether the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1)… should be interpreted as covering… the making available and management, on the internet, of a sharing platform which, by means of indexation of metadata relating to protected works and the provision of a search engine, allows users of that platform to locate those works and to share them in the context of a peer-to-peer network".

The CJEU set out what amounts to a communication to the public, which comprises of an 'act of communication' that happens to 'a public.

An 'act of communication' has to be assessed under a number of interdependent criteria that need to be fulfilled for the act to be deemed as one of communication. Among these criteria lie the indispensable role of the user and the nature of their intervention: "That user makes an act of communication when he intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of his action, to give his customers access to a protected work, particularly where, in the absence of that intervention, those customers would not be able to enjoy the broadcast work, or would be able to do so only with difficulty". In essence, if a user (or a website in this case) intervenes, with full knowledge of doing so, and gives access to copyright protected works that would otherwise be unavailable to the end-users, they would be making an act of communication. The users can also access the works whenever and wherever they please.

Thomas' new online venture would have to
end before it even began...

A 'public' amounts to an indeterminate number of potential viewer, although the number would have to be fairly large. The communication above would also have to happen through a new technical means, not employed by the original communicator (if done so at all initially), to a 'new public', i.e. "…a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication of their work to the public". Finally, the profit-making nature of the communication, if any, is not wholly irrelevant to this assessment.

Following previous decisions, including in Svensson, BestWater and Stichting Brein, the Court established that "…any act by which a user, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, provides its clients with access to protected works is liable to constitute an ‘act of communication’ for the purposes of Article 3(1)".

TBP's platform offers the files for download when and wherever the end-user wants to using the torrent and magnet files provided in their index. Additionally, the Court saw that, while the files were uploaded onto the site by its users and not TBP, "…by making available and managing [the] online sharing platform… intervene, with full knowledge of the consequences of their conduct, to provide access to protected works, by indexing on that platform torrent files which allow users of the platform to locate those works and to share them within the context of a peer-to-peer network". Clearly, TBP's heavy role in the management of the index of the files plays an integral part in the copying of those files by the users. Without them the users would not, potentially at least, have access to the files, making TBP's role essential in the process.

Finally, the Court rejected that TBP only merely provided the physical facilities enabling or making the communication, as the website made the location and access to the files easier through its indexing and search facilities, while actively pruning the collection of files on their website to exclude dead or faulty links.

The Court concluded that the making available and management of an online sharing platform like TBP must be considered to be an act of communication.

The second hurdle therefore was whether this was done to a 'public'. In order to determine this, the Court has to consider both how many persons have access to the same work at the same time and how many of them have access to it in succession.

Many subscribers of both ISPs' services had accessed and downloaded files from the TBP website. The 'public' concerned also included all of the 'peers' on the torrent system, which amounts to, at a given time, potentially tens of millions of users. The communication therefore does happen to an indeterminate amount of people, involving a large amount of individuals – falling in the definition of a 'public' under the Directive. The users of the website would also not have been considered by the original communicators of the works, therefore being a 'new public'.

The Court ultimately concluded that: "…the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1)… must be interpreted as covering… the making available and management, on the internet, of a sharing platform which, by means of indexation of metadata referring to protected works and the provision of a search engine, allows users of that platform to locate those works and to share them in the context of a peer-to-peer network".

The decision is a very important one, and sets the tone for the enforcement of copyright against torrent websites all over the Internet, not just TBP. Clearly, the Court placed a heavy emphasis on the active management of the website, its index, and the provision of the facilities to easily search and download infringing materials from the website. This writer would agree with this assessment, since, should a very active facilitation of copyright infringement be included under Article 3, this would open up the field for a tremendous amount of abuse as a result. It will remain to be seen how this decision will impact these websites, but it is clear that rightsholders will welcome this decision with open arms. 

Source: IPKat

Watch the Fight - Court of Appeal Affirms Blocking Order for Cartier Against ISPs

Just as was discussed last week, the issue of counterfeit goods has plagued many retailers, brand owners and online sellers for years, with the availability of Chinese (or otherwise) manufactured counterfeit items being sold for pennies on many websites. While qualitatively often worse than the real thing, the lost sales and revenues from the counterfeit business are what ultimately matter, and brand owners have tried to combat this issue through various means. One such tool has been to utilize the ISPs as third-party intermediaries in stopping access to these sites, and with a High Court ruling allowing for ISPs to be possibly on the hook for this enforcement (more on which can be found here), the matter seemed all but settled. The providers appealed the case, and the Court of Appeal handed down its decision only a couple of weeks ago.

As a brief primer to those who are not familiar with the case, Cartier International AG & Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others dealt with the sale of counterfeit Richemont goods, encompassing the Cartier and Montblanc brands specifically. The goods were sold on a set of specific websites, and the claimant pursued an order to block access to these websites through the ISPs. They contested the application, which was subsequently given to the claimant, for which the ISPs appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The first point of contention discussed by the Court was that of jurisdiction, specifically under Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive, Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (and the lack of its implementation into UK law) and section 97A of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which, arguably, does not allow for the granting of an injunction under domestic law in the UK. Cartier contended the assertion that the lack of implementation of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive did not preclude jurisdiction, which stemmed from section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

A blocking order: the red card of the Internet

Lord Justice Kitchin, who delivered the majority judgment, determined that, although the ISPs are not guilty of any wrongdoing (as they did not encourage or participate in the infringement themselves) nor did they owe a duty of care (per CBS Songs v Armstrad) to Richemont, the court's would still have jurisdiction to give the order in the case. The rejection of this would, per his assessment: "...impose a straightjacket on the court and its ability to exercise its equitable powers which is not warranted by principle". The ability to impose injunctions was not restricted to apply to only infringers, and could be used in 'new ways'. This extension was also, in his view, fully covered by Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive.

The law Lord saw no issues with the provision of the order by law, especially in the light of limitations to the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

To be able to issue a blocking order certain threshold conditions have to be observed. These are, as set out by Lord Justice Kitchin: "...First, the ISPs must be intermediaries within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 11 [of the Enforcement Directive]. Secondly, either the users or the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant's trade marks. Thirdly, the users or the operators of the website must use the services of the ISPs. Fourthly, the ISPs must have actual knowledge of this". After some discussion (which this writer consciously omits for brevity's sake), the Court did determine that the threshold conditions were indeed satisfied in this instance.

Finally, the Court dealt with the matter of principles to be applied  when considering the imposition of a blocking order. These were set out by Lord Justice Kitchin: "...the relief must (i) be necessary; (ii) be effective; (iii) be dissuasive; (iv) not be unnecessarily complicated or costly; (v) avoid barriers to legitimate trade; (vi) be fair and equitable and strike a "fair balance" between the applicable fundamental rights; and (vii) be proportionate". Primarily what these conditions operate as are a safe-guard for too broad, onerous and one-sided orders, allowing for a certain degree of leniency to be applied in the consideration of any blocking orders. This, however, has to be assessed with the substantiality of the websites in mind (one would think this would encompass user amounts, sales and accessibility, and the number of websites applied for, for example) and the need for remedies to properly function as safeguards to abuse.

Lord Justice Kitchin did see that the order could be justified in the light of the above principles in this instance. The Court ultimately disallowed the appeal and sustained the order.

The decision was by no means without its issues, and one primary concern was raised by Lord Justice Briggs on costs. While the majority agreed that the costs and time should be imposed on the ISPs, Lord Justice Briggs saw that these should be not placed on the ISPs, but the rightsholders (and this writer, agreed with him, as the ISPs, functioning as non-active entities in the infringement process, would be unduly burdened by the possibility of dozens/hundreds of blocking orders and their subsequent costs). Even though the costs are largely modest, as observed by Lord Justices Kitchin and Jackson, burdening the ISPs with them would seem onerous, especially considering they derive no benefit from the exploitation of those rights.

In the end the case is a very interesting example of the law adapting to its new playing field, and while it does provide a great opportunity for rightsholders, it does also cause some concern for ISPs and the automation of enforcement on the Internet.  In any event, this writer does envision the case possibly being appealed to the Supreme Court, who would have the final say in the matter.

A Positive Signal - No Liability for Providers of Free WiFi, Says AG Szpunar

As discussed on this very blog over 6 months ago, free public WiFi is something we all take for granted, even if just a little. Having access to the worldwide web at most restaurants, coffee shops and even the Underground in London is nearly ubiquitous in the developed world, and one that presents both opportunity for its users and liability for those who provide it, especially when it comes to the infringement of intellectual property rights. The CJEU has been slated to answer the question of third-party liability for those who provide free WiFi in the case of copyright infringement, and awaiting that the opinion of Advocate General Szpunar has given their answer as to this highly important question.

The case of Tobias McFadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH deals with Tobias McFadden, who owned a business selling and renting lighting and sound systems for various events, and offered free WiFi access at his store for any visiting patrons. The Internet connection offered had no password protection, nor did Mr. McFadden monitor the users taking advantage of the free WiFi. In early September 2010 such a user downloaded a song illegally using his WiFi connection, and Sony Music subsequently took him to court for copyright infringement as a liable third party.

The Regional Court of Munich referred the matter to the CJEU, who had to answer several questions relating to Article 12(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, pertaining to whether the provision of the WiFi would amount to the provider as being a mere conduit, or whether they would be liable for the infringement indirectly.

The Advocate General grouped the questions into two more specific references: "...whether a professional person... who, in the course of business, operates a free, public Wi-Fi network, falls within the scope of application of Article 12 [as a mere conduit]", and therefore is not liable for the infringement of any other parties using that WiFi (questions 1-3); and, if Article 12 does apply, the he needs to interpret the limitation of liability of intermediary service providers in that Article (questions 4-9).

The Scope of Article 12

The scope of Article 12 hinges largely on the potential economic nature of the provision of the service, as defined in Article 2(a) of the same Directive, and the meaning of 'providing' access to a network under Article 12.

A lack of WiFi would cause some issues

The Advocate General addressed the first point by concluding that the provision of free WiFi would indeed be an economic activity, as "...where, in the course of his business, an economic operator offers Internet access to the public, even if not against payment, he is providing a service of an economic nature, even if it is merely ancillary to his principal activity". The Advocate General added onto his point, setting out that the provision of the Internet access necessarily takes place in an economic context, that "[a]ccess to the Internet may constitute a form of marketing designed to attract customers and gain their loyalty. In so far as it contributes to the carrying on of the principal activity, the fact that the service provider may not be directly remunerated by recipients of the service is not decisive.". What remains key here is the ancillary nature of the free WiFi, and this writer agrees, since even if they WiFi is not the focal point of the business, it drives foot traffic and adds value to the provision of the main service, creating a service of economic nature (which is important, since nature does not necessarily mean direct economic benefit)

He then turned to the matter of the meaning of 'providing' access to a network, determining that it means "...that the activity in question enables the public to have access to a network and takes place in an economic context". The intent of projected role of the provider is not relevant, but merely the provision of the service in the above economic context.

The Advocate General then concluded that: "...Articles 2(a) and (b) and 12(1) of [the] Directive... must be interpreted as applying to a person who, as an adjunct to his principal economic activity, operates a Wi-Fi network with an Internet connection that is accessible to the public free of charge".

Interpretation of Article 12

Questions 4-9 concerned the specific interpretation of Article 12, and will be dealt with in more brevity below, although discussed quite extensively by the Advocate General. The questions are, specifically, whether a national court could penalize an intermediary service provider, in the event of infringement through their service, awarding damages, costs or an injunction as the form of the penalty (questions 4-5). Additionally, if this would not be generally possible, whether it would be possible to limit the extent of Article 12 (question 6), or through other unwritten requirements (questions 7-8). Finally, the last question asks for the limits of any injunctions that may be awarded against an intermediary service provider (question 9).

In answering question 4 and 5 the Advocate General saw that the limitations of liability for intermediary service provides would extend to damages and pecuniary claims, such as for costs. In his view this is precluded by Article 12(1), and would have an impact on the development of the service provider's business, irrespective of it being damages or punitive costs. He did, however, accepted the possibility of injunctive relief, and any ancillary penalties thereto. In summary to questions 4 and 5, he stated that "Article 12... precludes the making of any order against a provider of mere conduit services that entails a finding of civil liability against that service provider... [it] therefore precludes the making of orders against intermediary service providers not only for the payment of damages, but also for the payment of the costs of giving formal notice or other costs relating to copyright infringements committed by third parties as a result of the information transmitted. It does not preclude the granting of an injunction, non-compliance with which is punishable by a fine".

In relation to questions 6,7 and 8 (seeking to clarify the possible exclusion of actions taken against intermediary service providers), the Advocate General sought to strike a balance per recital 41 of the Directive. In his opinion, the Advocate General saw that there should be no limitations imposed on actions that can be taken against providers, though taking into account their actions when the infringement is brought to their attention. He also observed that the conditions under Article 12(1) are non-exhaustive, and could be added to with additional unwritten requirements.

Finally, he turned to the final 9th question, which asks whether national courts could impose injunctions on service providers against future infringement on their network. He saw that this was indeed possible, but this injunction could not impose a future obligation of monitoring the network or breach any other EU or national legislation (including the basic human rights afforded in the European Convention on Human Rights). He summarized that the injunction can only issued if the provider cannot, or will not, address the infringement in one of three measures: the termination of the internet connection (of the infringer); password-protection of the connection; or the monitoring the connection, but only to ensure the future infringement of rights using the same connection (observing time limitations on said monitoring).

The ultimate decision of the CJEU is pending, and will potentially impact the provision of free WiFi in the EU should they not follow the AG's opinion in this matter. This writer expects them to follow the opinion, as it clearly shows a practical and functional approach to a complex, and sensitive question. Should they not do so, the provision of free WiFi could be severely hindered, or even ended by some providers, which would be a big problem for those who cannot necessarily afford their own connections. Either way, this writer is anticipating the CJEU's decision with great interest.

Source: IPKat

Coffee Shop Conundrum - ECJ Set to Decide on Free WiFi and Third Party Liability

In a time when the internet is nearly always with us, be it in a smartphone, a laptop or other smart devices, you often taken things for granted such as free WiFi. For many travelers it has saved their behinds from being lost, out of money, or in some unfortunate cases, even potential harm, and many of us in bigger cities like London can easily overlook the need for WiFi. But, as Uncle Ben framed it so eloquently: with great power (i.e. Internet connectivity) comes great responsibility. People can be inconsiderate, and at times outright indifferent, to potential liability issues in using other peoples' or organizations' free WiFi, which begs the question: can a third-party be liable for possible infringement on their wireless network?

The answer to the question possible lies in the forthcoming decision of McFadden, faced by the European Court of Justice later this year (this writer hopes). The case, refereed to the ECJ from the Regional Court of Munich (decision in German can be found here), concerned a store owner, Toby McFadden, in Germany who's store specialized in light and acoustic engineering services. To further promote the store and its offerings the owner allowed potential customers to freely access a WiFi connection, with no password protection included. An unknown user used this free network to upload and share an infringing song on an online file-sharing platform, and Mr. McFadden was subsequently sued by Sony Music who argued he is liable for the infringement (among other things) that occurred on his unprotected network.

The case does bring forth several questions concerning Article 12 of Directive 2000/31/EC, more commonly known as the E-Commerce Directive. Although each of the questions merits an assessment in their own right, for the sake of brevity this writer shall endeavor to answer the question above, at least in the light of Article 12.

Wifi can cause some degree of envy

What Article 12 seeks to protect are service providers, or in other words 'mere conduits', who provide a service such as free WiFi, should they remain largely hands-off of the provision of that network (i.e. don't cherry-pick the users accessing the network, don't initiate the transmission of information or alter what is received in some way). This, however, cannot be a service for which the provider is remunerated, per Recital 18 of the Directive, and aims to facilitate the better sharing and access of information within the European Community.

This writer will freely admit his lack of knowledge in German law, but proposes to give a perspective from the UK side of things. Pinsent Masons in their Out-Law blog have set out that, per German law, individuals have to secure their internet connections through reasonable means, such as a password, to avoid liability should a third-party use their connection for nefarious purposes; however, this standard does not extend to commercial entities, which the case aims to settle.

Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the High Court has the capability to issue an injunction against a service provider, provided that the "...service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". What this has been interpreted in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc to encompass is true knowledge of one or more infringers using the provided network to do so, and the more detail of knowledge or facts given to the service provider (notices etc.) the less protection the provision offers to them. One could argue that a lack of password protection would not in itself give rise to an actual knowledge of possible infringement, as users, even if filtered through via password protection, could still abuse the network without the knowledge of its provider.

Whether Mr. McFadden was brazenly aware of the infringing acts being committed on his network is unknown to this writer, and he awaits the decision of the ECJ with some interest. Voices have been raised in the protection of open networks and access thereto by entities such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and one must agree with them to a certain extent. The 'locking down' of networks does provide a more cumbersome regime through which information and the Internet can be accessed, but one still does have to keep in mind the protection of legitimate rights within that space. What the ECJ decides will undoubtedly have ramifications on our WiFi networks, but one can imagine they'll only remain a login away.

Source: JDSupra

Pirates Uncovered - Dallas Buyers Club's Landmark Case in Australia

Piracy is considered by many in the entertainment industry to be the plight of the 21st century creative minds and pockets (and the pockets' of many shareholders, one would think). What ever your thoughts on copyright piracy, the topic remains a hot-button issue, and the courts have been, and will undoubtedly continue to, battle with for years to come. With this in mind, the enforcement of rights online has proven difficult, especially when a user, either downloading or sharing said infringing content, is effectively hidden behind a single Internet Protocol (IP) number, which does not accurately identify the given user (as discussed here in some manner relating to the US). The battle between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and copyright holders has been an active one regarding this, and a recent decision in Australia seems to have opened the door to potentially combating this issue on the copyright holders' end, at least for now.

The case in question was Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited, which dealt with the very successful movie Dallas Buyers Club that was, among other things, nominated for 6 Oscars in its year of release. Due to the movie's immense success, it was promptly shared online, and in an action for preliminary discovery, the movies' rights holder Dallas Buyers Club LLC sought to identify the individuals behind all 4726 unique IP addresses associated with sharing the movie online through the 6 respondent ISPs in the action. The ISPs contested this application on several grounds, but the first instance decision lay with the Federal Court of Australia.

Although the respondents actively contested the ownership of the copyright in the work (decided as being held by Dallas Buyers Club LLC, with very little resistance from the Court), and other matters underpinning the case at hand, the meat of the discussion lay in the possible allowance of discovery in relation to the aforementioned IP addresses.

The secret life of a copyright infriger (Source: Bizarro Comics)

Under the Australian Federal Court Rules 2011 a party can seek for the identification of an unknown party should they have a cause of action against that person under certain requirements: "(a) there may be a right for the prospective applicant to obtain relief against a prospective respondent; and (b) the prospective applicant is unable to ascertain the description of the prospective respondent; and (c) another person (the other person): (i) knows or is likely to know the prospective respondent’s description; or (ii) has, or is likely to have, or has had, or is likely to have had, control of a document that would help ascertain the prospective respondent’s description." Clearly, as the individuals sharing the movie are behind an IP address, and therefore hard to identify without information from the ISP as to who is behind said IP address, Dallas Buyers Club, at least prima facie, had a case to find out who these people are under the Act.

Regardless of the ISPs' rejection of Dallas Buyers Club's assertions under the three requirements of the Act, the Court saw that they had fulfilled the requirements and were therefore entitled to disclosure as to the users' identities. They had a right to seek relief as to a potential breach of their copyright; they could not identify the individuals committing that infringement; and the ISPs knew or were likely to know who they were, or at least would be in possession of their subscriber details based on fixed IP addresses.

Even though Justice Perram allowed the disclosure of the users' information to Dallas Buyers Club, he did however set certain restrictions on it, which will be set by the parties later in the process. Dallas Buyers Club have indicated that they want the details disclosed by May 6th, but the letter that will be sent out will be determined on a later note as well.

Although the case is an important landmark in the fight against piracy, the disclosure of individuals' details in relation to copyright infringement is nothing wholly new. In Canada, under the Federal Court Rules, the disclosure of such information is very similar to the Australian provision; and Voltage LLC, the parent company of Dallas Buyers Club, has successfully used the provision to gain such information in Canada in the case of Voltage Pictures LLC v John Doe. Similarly, in the UK, a Norwich order (the equivalent of the Australian provision's application) was issued for copyright infringement through which subscribers' details were disclosed to the copyright holder in Golden Eye (International) Ltd & Anor v Telefonica UK Ltd. Both cases also discuss the restrictions needed in the event of such disclosure, such as: "[p]utting safeguards in place so that alleged infringers receiving any “demand” letter from a party obtaining an order under Rule 238 or a Norwich Order not be intimidated into making a payment without the benefit of understanding their legal rights and obligations... [s]pecific warnings regarding the obtaining of legal advice or the like should be included in any correspondence to individuals who are identified by the Norwich Order... [l]imiting the information provided by the third party by releasing only the name and residential address but not telephone numbers and e-mail addresses... [and] [r]equiring the party obtaining the order to provide a copy of any proposed “demand” letter to all parties on the motion and to the Court prior to such letter being sent to the alleged infringers". These, among others, will undoubtedly be considered by the Australian courts in their application of such orders in the future, and in this case specifically.

As one could imagine, the case has spawned a huge amount of discussion, especially relating to Voltage Pictures' previous strong-arm tactics in their letters to infringers. Nevertheless, the cold application of the law, at least to this writer, seems to be quite accurate, and individuals who engage in such activities need to understand the risks associated with illegal copying of media online. The Dallas Buyers Club case clearly sets the stage for more direct, stronger enforcement of copyright within Australia, and it remains to be seen how the provision will be utilized in the future, and what restrictions the courts ultimately put on the disclosure of subscribers' details and the usage thereof.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Fake Goods and the Internet - ISPs Face Trademarks

Counterfeit products are big business. Some estimates have put the sale of counterfeit items at a billion dollars in 2013, and anyone who has traveled around mainland Europe has probably seen people sell "authentic" designer bags off pieces of carpet on the street (and who doesn't like purchasing their luxury goods in the great outdoors). The only issue with selling blatantly on the street is the sheer visibility of your transactions, with the added issue of a very limited quantity of items for sale. The more genius members of the business have since moved onto the World Wide Web, pushing their goods to the willing masses on the great waves of the Internet. The law hasn't fully adapted to this change, with a clear difference in the protection of so-called intangible counterfeit goods (piracy etc.) and more physical objects and their intangible attributes such as trademarks. Amidst this uncertainty the protectability of trademarks in this space was brought up in the English courts, and has since been taken on by the UK Court of Appeal.

The case in question was Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, which dealt with the company Richemont, which owns several luxury brands such as Cartier and IWC. As Richemont's goods are highly sought after and quite valuable, six websites were started, aimed at selling and advertising goods using Richemont's trademarks in doing so. The website's donned such fantastic domains as www.cartierloveonline.com and www.iwcwatchtop.com, clearly aimed to confuse and befuddle those who are less savvy on the information super highway. As such Richemont wanted to halt the websites' operations, and approached the courts to impose an injunction to block the websites.

What remains the bigger question in this case is whether such a block is possible under the current law, or as was framed by Justice Arnold: "First, does this Court have jurisdiction to make an order of the kind sought? Secondly, if the Court has jurisdiction, what are the threshold conditions, if any, which must be satisfied if the Court is to make an order? Thirdly, are those conditions satisfied in the present case? Fourthly, if those conditions are satisfied, what are the principles to be applied in deciding whether or not to make such an order? Fifthly, applying those principles, should such orders be made in the present case?"

Under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the courts can impose an injunction against an Internet service provider; however the issue presented to the court is that under section 97A the courts can impose an injunction only "...where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". As such there was no issue of copyright infringement in the case, as only Richemont's trademarks had been potentially infringed, and no provision allowing for injunctions in the event of trademarks being infringed exists in the UK.

The Court of Appeal's message to trademark infringers

This lead to some extreme juggling of current laws and whether such an injunction was possible bar an express mention of such a power, although this was meant to have been implemented by the UK under the Information Society Directive. Justice Arnold was faced to examine whether this omission was supplemented under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, through which "[t]he High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so". Agreeing with precedent, Justice Arnold saw that an injunction under section 37 of the 1981 Act would not contravene the Supreme Court Act 1981, allowing for the High Court to afford the injunction as a final decision should it do so.

Justice Arnold discussed the conditions which have to be fulfilled before a court may award the aforementioned injunction: "First, the ISPs must be intermediaries within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 11 [of the IPR Enforcement Directive]. Secondly, either the users and/or the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant's trade marks. Thirdly, the users and/or the operators of the website must use the ISPs' services to do that. Fourthly, the ISPs must have actual knowledge of this. Each of the first three conditions follows from the wording of Article 11 itself.".

Applying the conditions to the case Justice Arnold quickly saw that all of the requirements had been fulfilled. First, British Sky and the other ISPs acting as defendants can be said to be intermediaries within the meaning of the Directive without much question. Second, as Richemont owns the rights to several infringed trademarks in the case, such as Cartier, IWC and Montblanc, used in in the six websites dealt with in the case, the websites clearly infringed on those rights. Third, due to the ISPs role as intermediaries, although are not prima facie used for the infringement directly, because of their integral role in the conveyance of the infringement to Internet uses they are used for the infringement, irrespective of a contractual relation between the infringer and the ISPs. Finally, through evidence it was easy for Richemont to establish that the ISPs did indeed have actual knowledge of this infringement and chose not to act on it. Because of this the requirements are fulfilled, and Justice Arnold could award the injunction.

The case can be said to be very important in a UK perspective, and potentially as an international precedent. Through the decision rights holders have a remedy to address the infringement of their rights outside of just copyrights online, potentially allowing the curbing of counterfeit sales online (although this writer will admit it seems like a long-shot it would be ever fully eradicated). Nevertheless, this remedy can be argued to have been needed, and in the absence of intervention by the legislature, should stand as an avenue for trademark enforcement on the Web.

Source: World Trademark Review

Retrospective - Trademarks and the Internet

The Internet has shaped our world in too many ways to even count, and the law and its application has not been exempt from this radical change. What had to apply in only a largely physical and restricted world, now has to operate in one which knows practically no physical or territorial bounds. Through this the use of intellectual property has become international, and the law's confides of struggle to fill the gaps left in this transition to a digital domain. An example of this is the use of trademarks, and whether their use online can infringe on the mark of others, even if done in a different jurisdiction. The answer, at least on the outset, is not an obvious one, but was faced by the United Kingdom Court of Appeals over a decade ago.

The case in question is 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd, decided in the very first year of the second millennium, which dealt with the phone number "800-FLOWERS", registered in the US as a trademark in the mid 1980s by the company 800-Flowers Inc. The company ran a floral telemarketing company, selling flowers and floral products via telephone to those who called the number 1-800-FLOWERS (or numerically 1-800-356-9377), via the Internet and through physical locations, to destinations both in the US and outside of the country. Phonenames were a business which dealt with alpha-numerical phone numbers in the UK, much like the one above, acquiring them and selling them on to business who wish to use them. Phonenames acquired the number which equated to 800-FLOWERS in the early 1990s from British Telecom, although ownership of the number still remained with BT. 800-Flowers had applied for the same number prior to Phonenames, failing to acquire it while still advertising the new service in newspapers. 800-Flowers then appealed the issuing of the phone number, arguing it would lead to confusion as they could establish a firm presence and goodwill within the US. The matter was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeals for a final decision.

The case included deliberations on sections 10, 11 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act 1938. Section 10, which deal with whether the mark is capable of distinguishing the 800-Flowers' service in the UK, allowing for its protection, was the first consideration. Lord Justice Parker saw that the usage of alpha-numerical numbers was foreseeable in the UK during the number's registration in 1993, however even then the number was only just that; a phone number, and would not be capable of distinguishing the appellant's services from others in purely that form. The appeal also failed under section 11, as there could not be any confusion since the appellant had not used the number in the UK, creating no prior use which consumers could reasonably believe would be the appellant's service.

What is more relevant to the question posed is under section 17. Under the provision a mark has to be used in the UK (emphasis the court's) to be considered a 'proprietor', defined more specifically under section 68. If no use is found, the appellant cannot be considered to owning the trademark in the UK. This is very important in the proposed Internet context, as the Internet spans vastly beyond the origin country where a website is ran or owned. Lord Justice Parker indicated a website does not necessarily in itself cause for there to be use in the UK, specifying that "...the evidence (such as it is) concerning the Applicant's internet website [is not] sufficient to justify the conclusion that accessing the website amounts to use of the mark at the point of access". Among other considerations, Lord Justice Parker refused the appeal, as there was no sufficient use on 800-FLOWER's part within the UK, even with the existence of the phone number and a website.

Lord Justice Buxton further considered the Internet in his deliberations, still agreeing with the majority's decision. In his mind the matter is still quite open, and needed to be addressed directly:

"The implications of internet use for issues of jurisdiction are clearly wide-ranging, and will need to be worked out with care both in domestic and in private international law... I do venture to suggest that the essence of the problem is to fit the factual circumstances of internet use into the substantive rules of law applying to the many and very different legal issues that the internet affects. It is therefore unlikely, and it is nowhere suggested, that there will be one uniform rule, specific to the internet, that can be applied in all cases of internet use. That consideration is of importance in our present case, because it was a significant part of the applicant's submissions that, for instance, "publication" of statements in a particular jurisdiction by downloading from the internet according to the rules of the law of defamation or of misrepresentation was of at least strong analogical relevance to whether a trade mark downloaded from the internet had been "used" in the jurisdiction to which it was downloaded; and, even more directly, that when A placed a mark on the internet that was downloaded by B, the same criteria should apply in determining whether A thereby used the mark as determine whether A thereby infringed the same mark in the jurisdiction where B was located."

Greg now understood that she wanted flowers, not carrots - a typical mistake

His honor finally rejected the potential notion that use on the Internet would amount to use in every jurisdiction the mark might be potentially accessed from, even via the net: "I would wish to approach these arguments, and particularly the last of them, with caution. There is something inherently unrealistic in saying that A "uses" his mark in the United Kingdom when all that he does is to place the mark on the internet, from a location outside the United Kingdom, and simply wait in the hope that someone from the United Kingdom will download it and thereby create use on the part of A". One can easily agree with Lord Justice Buxton, and as he further states, 'use' should entail a more active component than just passively placing in in a sphere where it is easily accessed from, even by accident. The active part could be an advertisement in that country, or something which encourages the use of the web facilities. To summarize one can quote Justice Jacob in the case's first appeal in the High Court: "...the mere fact that websites can be accessed anywhere in the world does not mean, for trade mark purposes that the law should be regarded as being used everywhere in the world. It all depends upon the circumstances, particularly the intention of the website owner and what the reader will understand if he accesses the site. In other fields of law, publication on a website may well amount to universal publication".

As one can see the Internet poses an interesting sphere where trademarks present their owners with an abundance of opportunities for exposure; however this has to be balanced with regulation and limiting the Internet's scope in terms of use. The Lords above are quite correct, but one can say the Internet has not had its last impact on trademarks.

Domain Registrar Faces Infringement Liability in Germany

Internet Service Providers have, for a long time, been the favorite target of copyright holders simply because they are often the conduit between the infringer and the material which is being illegally copied, although their liability as secondary infringers has been rejected since. The Internet provides a web of connectivity between a multitude of actors, such as ISPs, computer manufacturers and others, who in some ways, do enable the infringement of copyright, albeit not as their primary function. As with the former Betamax recorders, the simple function of potentially enabling infringement does not incur liability, arguably at least in most instances, however a new challenge was set against web domain registrars in Germany.

In a recent decision (which can be found here, unfortunately only in German), the German Regional Court of Saarbrücken had to decide on the liability of domain registrars, and whether they could be held liable as secondary infringers should the domain owners facilitate the aforementioned infringement. The case concerned the website h33t.com, which acts as a torrent tracker site, much like the more notorious Pirate Bay. The copyright holders of Robin Thicke's song "Blurred Lines", Universal Music, took on the domain registrar Key-Systems, who registered h33t's domain.

Ed was confused about domains

In their decision the Court saw that domain registrars could face liability if the domains they have registered facilitate the infringement of copyright. If they are notified of the potential infringement of copyright, and choose to do nothing about the infringements, they could face liability. The Court imposed a duty to investigate onto domain registrars; a duty which can be argued to be quite onerous, especially for bigger registrars which manage vast numbers of domains. Key-System's general council, Volker Greimann, commented on the decision: "The courts’ definition of what is obviously violating is however extremely broad and the duty to act is expanded to deactivation of the entire domain even if only one file or link is infringing... If left unchallenged, this decision would constitute an undue expansion of the legal obligations of each registrar based in Germany, endangering the entire business model of registering domain names or performing DNS addressing for third parties". One can agree with Mr. Greimann as to the onerous nature of the new duty imposed on registrars, especially when considering the vagueness of the duty and the potential numbers of websites which might infringe copyright in one way or another.

The Court did mention that the infringements in relation to h33t were "...obvious and easy to identify", potentially presenting registrars with protection in cases where infringements are not obvious or are a result of negligence or ignorance. The Court in this instance ordered Key-Systems to prevent the infringement; however what those measures are remains unclear to this writer. Even though the domain is shut down by Key-Systems, its transition to another service outside of Germany can be said to be quick and painless - making the duty to investigate and take action both onerous, and arguably frivolous, as infringers will merely change service providers if their activities can be said to be illegal. Through this Mr. Greimann's argument of it hurting German domain registrars could be said to carry some merit.

Secondary liability has been a hot question since peer-to-peer services have made infringement much easier, and websites which provide users with, for example, torrent links, have become abundant. Whether liability should be extended to all middle actors can be argued to be potentially damaging to the Internet and its function. This writer does not have much insight into German law specifically, and people who might want to hear Universal Music's general council, Mirko Brüß's, arguments can refer to his opinion post here (again in German only).

Source: Bloomberg

Music Playlists and Copyright

Services like Spotify and Pandora have become huge in the last few years, allowing for users to listen to music on-the-go, sorting it according to the type of music they like and even allowing for the creation of custom playlists. Before the era of digital music becoming the predominant format, there were music compilation albums (which still exist believe it or not); an old analog format of a playlist if you will. Collections like Now That's What I Call Music! have been around for decades, selling millions upon millions of copies of albums with a collection of recent (or old) hits put into a convenient playlist on the album. As such there is very little correlation between the old compilation albums and modern digital music services and their playlists, but could playlists actually infringe copyright?

In a recent filing Ministry of Sound have alleged that Spotify have infringed their copyright in their creation of custom playlists which contained the same songs in the same order as what can be found in their compilation albums. These playlists are freely available on Spotify's service and even labeled as "Ministry of Sound". In Ministry of Sound's argument their playlists are protected under copyright as argued by CEO Lohan Presencer: "What we do is a lot more than putting playlists together: a lot of research goes into creating our compilation albums, and the intellectual property involved in that".

Not to be confused with the Ministry of Sound

What some of the readers of this blog, and intellectual property law enthusiasts in general, should notice is that this rationale goes against what has been long since argued in Feist (more of which can be found on this very blog here); effort does not necessarily equal copyright, and copyright does not protect ideas, merely their expression. Although Feist is an American case, this position has been adopted in a similar fashion by the European Court of Justice in Football Dataco and Others, thus applying in the UK.

So should a list of songs be protected under copyright? Arguably no, as the mere presentation of information in a list should not garner protection. Admittedly Ministry of Sounds probably do spend time in the arrangement and selection of the particular songs in any given compilation album, but this is only a collection of information. Each song individually will garner protection, but the listing of those arguably would not. Whether Ministry of Sound are successful is yet to be seen, but this writer in particular does not see their argument going very far.

Source: Digital Music News

Retrospective - IP Addresses and Identification of Copyright Infringers

One of the more controversial aspects of the Internet is often thought of being the anonymity it offers to users. With nothing to particularly identify you as an individual, unless you provide specific information pertaining to who you are, the Internet often brings out both the good and bad in people; "Surely I can download this album or tell this person off, seeing as no one will know I did it?" There are methods of identifying someone, but as they stand today they are ineffective in pin-pointing exactly who did what, only giving an indication as to who might have been the infringer. The more predominant of those is the use of Internet Protocol addresses, or as they're more commonly known as; IP addresses.

"No Dale, you don't need to wear a balaclava on the Internet"

An IP address when put into simple terms is an indicator of a network and a device connected to that network. This is represented in a numerical fashion, such as 123.456.78.9. The numbers themselves represent the host network used and the location of that network. This information can be used to locate a person who has for example infringed copyright or done other things online which are deemed illegal. The problem with this method of identification is that it does not exactly tell us who has committed the infringement, but merely the location of the act. This essentially means that if Child A downloads music using his home Internet connection, shared by his Parents and Child B, the authorities will not be necessarily able to tell who in that household has committed that offense. This rough information can potentially be used in more questionable litigation processes, but has been used successfully in the prosecution and identification of individual in such proceedings.

"Sshh, I'm hunting infringers"

A case which dealt with the usability of IP addresses as a method of identification happened in early 2012 in the United States. K-Beech v John Does dealt with anonymous users (80 in total) who downloaded several videos of a not-so-family-friendly variety using BitTorrent technology, a work which was owned by K-Beech Ltd. In their application K-Beech alleged that the John Does had infringed their copyright by making an illegal copy of the work. These users were only identified through their IP addresses, and the court in its judgment deliberated whether it could be an accepted form of identification in such cases. Judge Brown made an interesting analogy in the matter: "An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones... it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call." This brings to light the point made above as to the ambiguity to who committed the given infringement in an Internet network. Judge Brown further expanded that with the ever-growing popularity of wireless connections the accuracy is fading even more, due to the even wider access to any given network by a larger number of individuals. In evidence to this the court drew on a previous judgment where it was noted that in 30% of cases the names which were given as the identified users were incorrect as to the infringing person.

What is important in the final observations of the case is the acceptance by the judiciary that an IP address can no longer effectively identify a user committing an infringement. Along with this proxy servers (a method where all network use is routed through a third-party server somewhere else, even on the other side of the globe) have even further blurred the line of actual user and who can be identified based on IP addresses alone. Judge Brown perfectly summarized this point in his conclusion relating to this point:

"In sum, although the complaints state that IP addresses are assigned to “devices” and thus by discovering the individual associated with that IP address will reveal “defendants’ true identity,” this is unlikely to be the case. Most, if not all, of the IP addresses will actually reflect a wireless router or other networking device, meaning that while the ISPs will provide the name of its subscriber, the alleged infringer could be the subscriber, a member of his or her family, an employee, invitee, neighbor or interloper."

Since the case there have been other instances where the courts have further affirmed this point and can be seen as to have closed this avenue of identification for good, at least in the US. What can be said is that this is a positive development, since the ambiguity of the true user can lead to problems for people who have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. Of course one has to emphasize individual responsibility and the need for measures to prevent such uses, but with evidentiary standards being much higher in criminal proceedings for example, it would seem odd that such an inaccurate method of identification could have been accepted.

Safe Harbors and 70s Music

Online services in the United States, such as websites where content is shared, have relied heavily on the protection of the Safe Harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Act to protect themselves from infringement through their services. The provision itself excludes online service providers from liability should the users of their services do so, on the condition that they are unaware of this activity and should they be notified of any infringements, take immediate action to stop the infringements or remove any infringing material. As one can see, the legislation encourages service providers to take a proactive stance, and limits their liability should their services be misused in a way which they're unaware of. From a provider's stand-point not only does this allow for start-ups to engage in their respective service provision, but it also prevents them from being immediately swamped by law suits and therefore never getting off the starting line. The matter of whether service providers, specifically music streaming services, would be protected from liability for sound recordings made before protection was awarded to them through Statute in 1972 (albeit still existed through common law) was deliberated by the New York State Appeals Court a mere few days ago in the case of UMG Records Inc v Escape Media Group Inc.

The grooviest of all sharks

The case concerned the website Grooveshark, where users could stream content that uploaded by other users,creating playlists or listening to selected artists, with revenue coming through user subscriptions or advertisements during streaming. The claimant, UMG Records argued that the Safe Harbor provisions did not offer escape from liability for service providers, due to the DMCA amending the prior Copyright Act which expressly set out that any sound recordings made before 1972 would not be covered under the Federal legislation. This would in turn mean that the amendments made in the DMCA would not apply to those songs, rendering the Safe Harbor provisions unusable to protect service providers, as liability would still exist through the common law.

In their decision the court stated that the provisions would not apply to songs made before 1972, causing the service provider to potentially be liable under common law. The decision went against a District Court decision a few years before, Capitol Records v MP3tunes, where Judge Pauley saw that there was no indication that the legislation would exclude sound recordings made prior to 1972. The decision in the NY Court is one of strict interpretation, and in this writer's honest opinion, lacks the common knowledge and application to today's needs for service providers. The legislation does not expressly limit its scope, and applying pre-Internet legislation in its interpretation would undermine what the Safe Harbor provisions set out to achieve; to offer protection for service providers in an age where millions have access to services, making their full control and prevention of infringement an arduous and difficult undertaking. The case will be appealed and hopefully rectified in higher courts.

The case itself shows yet again, as has been discussed in this blog several times, the datedness of copyright legislation in the US. Without express and clear provisions dealing with subject matters such as this, bringing copyright legislation to the 21st century, both users and service providers will end up fighting an uphill battle trying to protect their rights and ability to utilize the Internet to its fullest. Whether action will be taken will remain to be seen, but there clearly is a need for reform.

Source: Thomson Reuters

Retrospective - Stop your downloading! The liability of ISPs in Australia

The advent of fast Internet connections and the abundance of copyrighted material on offer through various channels and consumer's taking full advantage of both in getting their media fix. Content is available through legitimate means, for example iTunes or other online distributors, or through streaming services such as Netflix. However the flip-side of the coin is thought to be darker; downloading of music illegally, the streaming of movies and TV, all presenting an issue in themselves. The question often raised by both rights holders and the legislature is; "who is responsible for all of this?!" At the core of it, the choice to illegally download material is one which the consumer (yes, you) makes, and supervision is purely on the legislature to ensure it stays on top of the alleged infringements. But what if responsibility is passed on, not to the person infringing, but the entity providing them the service? To understand the relationship between an infringer and an ISP (Internet Service Provider) when it comes to copyright, let me give you an analogy. Should the entity providing the roads where we drive on be responsible for the misuses of those roads (owned by a company in this example)? The roads would presumable be intended for all who follow the laws and rules related to driving on the road, yet there still are people who drive over the speed limit or under the influence of substances. Should the company providing the roads be liable for the drivers’ potential infringement of those rules? The issue of responsibility came up in the High Court of Australia in the Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Others v iiNet Ltd case back in 2012.

"Can't see any infringements here, Dave"

Under the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia, section 101 sets out that an entity 'authorizing' an infringement of copyright would be liable in their own right, depending on a number of variables. The degree of control they have over the user in preventing their act; the nature of their relationship; and whether they took any action to stop or avoid the infringement by the user. Purely looking at the legislation you could imagine ISPs being in hot water. Due to ISPs controlling an individual's access to the Internet, you could imagine shutting down their illegal use of that service would be simple? Not so much. The sheer amount of subscribers makes monitoring the network usage a massive endeavor, and from the get-go, should ISPs even control what we do on the Internet? After all, that could be an infringement of their freedom of speech. No laws state any liability for ISPs currently, making their responsibility for our actions farfetched at best. Also with a lack of any guidelines adopted by all ISPs, the user could simply switch to another provider without any ramifications, avoiding his ban on his illegal use.

The High Court quickly dismissed iiNet's liability, due to the nature of their relationship with their subscribers. An ISP hardly can control the decisions its subscribers make, nor can they change or control the software which they use to attain or upload any infringing material. The Court also agreed with my earlier notion of the amount of subscribers, as overseeing thousands of users on a daily basis would be near impossible. One judge however did not see it the way the majority did (Justice Jagot) and stated in her opinion that iiNet's effectively approved the infringements of their users through their indifference. I for one cannot understand how her Honor could equate the relationship between an ISP and a single user of its network from thousands to effectively that of a parent ignoring its child's bad behavior. The High Court subsequently dismissed Roadshow Films' appeal.

Post-iiNet reaction from a network administrator

When wondering how the dynamic of an ISP and a user would have changed, if the High Court would have seen things much like Justice Jagot, the nature of the Internet could have been completely changed in Australia. Presuming ISPs would need to monitor and control all of their users’ traffic and web activities would have turned the Internet from a bastion of freedom of sharing, expression and connectivity, to an ultra-controlled authoritarian network, much like that in China where information is filtered and fully controlled. The freedom of the Internet is built on the ability to utilize it as one sees fit, and pay for any consequences that might come from their use. There have been talks about imposing further liability, yet with the European Union stepping back from such legislation, the Internet should remain the same, at least for now.