iiNet High Court Appeal (iiNet to win), Carrier Bravery


iiNet High Court Appeal (iiNet to win), Carrier Bravery

The High Court is set to hear the iiNet appeal at the end of this week.  Stan Beer at iTWire reports that the foreign studios pushing the appeal are likely to go down 80-20, and that this is because the foreign studios didn’t offer to pay iiNet to investigate the infringements.

I think that the foreign studios are likely to lose and it’s probably 80% (maybe a little less – as a rule of thumb, if you are entirely certain of the strength of a case, you would rate its success rate at around 70% – there are no 100% cases).   However, it’s not because the foreign movie studios did anything wrong in setting up the initial action (offering to pay for iiNet to investigate infringements would not change whether or not iiNet was authorizing as the purported infringement predates the investigation).

Rather, it’s because their authorization argument is simply a poor argument.   A calm reading of the authorities finds it without support. The Full Court decision and cases like Jain and Metro on George are flawed basically because they have focussed overly on whether the alleged authorizer had power to control.  However, it is well established in the cases that the power to control is not sufficient for authorization.  That control is only relevant in the context of the relationship between the alleged authorizer and the primary infringer – the primary infringer must be able to draw some inference from the failure to exercise control.  In the iiNet case, the primary infringer is not able to draw any conclusion from the absence of action by iiNet.  It is not possible for iiNet’s inaction to play any causal role in the infringer’s actions/decision making.  For this reason iiNet cannot possibly be authorizing them.  Cowdroy’s decision at first instance is basically right. [See here and here and my as yet unpublished paper on the topic]

It is for this reason that the recent announcement by the Comms Alliance (see SMH report here) seems to be brave.  The announcement proposes that ISPs will give notices to their users over a 12 month period warning them of infringements.   So why is this an extremely courageous thing to do?  (And why should people like FoxTel be overjoyed, rather than annoyed as in the SMH report?).  Simple.  At the moment, an infringing user cannot form any opinion one way or another about their carrier’s inaction when the user infringes copyright.  What happens when a carrier establishes a practice of sending out notices?  Well, there are now grounds to argue that inaction is “sanction, approval or countenance”.   They will say the user, since they didn’t get any notice when they should have, believed that the carrier thought it was all right for them to infringe.  Hey presto authorization!  Establishing a practice of taking any action against users alleged to be infringing completes the foreign media companies’ bootstrap argument for them.  While the proposal does not include sanctions by the carrier, authorization by inaction will become a possible argument and it will be a slippery slope from there.

Notable is the absence of stories in the paper claiming how many industries have been eliminated by copyright infringement.  These always mysteriously come out immediately before notable court events related to copyright infringement.   There are still a few days left though I suppose.

5 Responses to “iiNet High Court Appeal (iiNet to win), Carrier Bravery”


  1. 1 Adrian Midgley 4 December 2011 at 7:22 pm

    Your argument seems correct to me.

  2. 3 brendanscott 6 December 2011 at 10:33 am

    Hi Adrian
    In the UK, it clearly is correct, as they have always been sensible about what constitutes authorization. In Australia, the issue is complicated by the fact that a judge (GIbbs J, later Gibbs CJ) in a 1970s high court case set out a test for authorization. The test is not so much wrong, as not always applicable – the test is also a minority judgment, the majority in the case didn’t adopt the test. The copyright interests have basically argued it is of universal application and some Federal court decisions have adopted it (I think incorrectly), which is why we have cases like iiNet.

    Basically the problem with the argument is that the notice given by the copyright holders *causes* the infringement by authorization. This cannot be right.

    Regards

    Brendan

  3. 4 Estate Litigation Lawyers Sydney 10 February 2012 at 7:38 am

    Hallow Brendon appreciated your view on it , was not clear about the incident.this is imp area of the article-In the iiNet case, the primary infringer is not able to draw any conclusion from the absence of action by iiNet. It is not possible for iiNet’s inaction to play any causal role in the infringer’s actions/decision making. For this reason iiNet cannot possibly be authorizing them.


  1. 1 High Court downs Inaction as Authorization case « Brendan Scott’s Weblog Trackback on 20 April 2012 at 4:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Blog Stats

  • 215,336 hits

OSWALD Newsletter

If you would like to receive OSWALD, a weekly open source news digest please send an email to oswald (with the subject "subscribe") at opensourcelaw.biz

%d bloggers like this: