Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited [2011] FCAFC 23

This case: the decision of the Full Court of Australia in: Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited [2011] FCAFC 23, is available on BarNet’s JADE legal research platform.

A further analysis of the decision, including the copyright issues and issues of authorisation will be published soon on JADE.

Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited [2011] FCAFC 23 (24 February 2011) (EMMETT, JAGOT AND NICHOLAS JJ)
Catchwords    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – authorisation of copyright infringement – copyright infringement notices served on internet service provider (ISP) alleging that users of ISP’s network were infringing copyright in cinematographic films by making them available online and electronically transmitting them to the public– whether ISP authorised copyright infringement – whether ISP had power to prevent infringement – whether ISP took reasonable steps to prevent or avoid infringement – consideration of other factors relevant to authorisation – knowledge of infringement – encouragement of infringement – inactivity and indifference to infringement – whether ISP sanctioned, approved or countenanced infringement – whether s 112E of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) prevented ISP from being found to have authorised infringement INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – acts of primary infringement – whether users of ISP’s network infringed copyright in cinematographic films by making them available online or electronically transmitting them to the public – whether the whole or a substantial part of any such cinematographic film was electronically transmitted – whether individual users committed multiple acts of infringement in relation to any such cinematographic film by making it available online and electronically transmitting it. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – whether Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) compelled a finding that ISP could not reasonably be expected to issue warning notices to customers or suspend or terminate their accounts on the basis of the copyright infringement notices because the disclosure or use of information contained in them or business records of the ISP to which it would need to have regard for that purpose was prohibited by law. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – ‘safe harbour’ provisions – whether ISP complied with relevant provisions of Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Jade tracks    Number of paragraphs: 807

Number of outgoing citations: 126