The Australian film and TV industry's attempt to basically force a three-strikes style anti-piracy system onto the country's ISPs through litigation rather than lobbying has failed. That is to say the Federal Court in Sydney has ruled in favour of internet service provider iiNet in the previously reported dispute between the net firm and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.

As previously reported, AFACT accused the net company of so called 'authorising infringement' for failing to stop their customers from illegally accessing and sharing unlicensed content on the internet. It was something of a test case which, had AFACT been successful, would have forced Aussie ISPs to introduce three-strikes style measures to avoid liability for copyright infringement.

But the Sydney court, which heard the two sides' arguments last year and ruled this week, said that while it was clear iiNet's customers were infringing AFACT members' copyrights, there was not a case for saying the net firm itself was guilty of authorising infringement.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy wrote in his judgement: "I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence establishes that iiNet has done no more than to provide an internet service to its users".

The ruling in theory has influence over English copyright law which is very similar to that in Australia, though in reality content owners here have never claimed ISPs could be liable for their customers' infringement under existing copyright rules (which are rather vague when it comes to authorising infringement). Which is why the content industries are instead lobbying government to specifically add some ISP liabilities to copyright law through the Digital Economy Bill. In some other territories - most notably the US - copyright rules specifically state ISPs cannot be held liable for their customers' illegal actions.

Welcoming the ruling, a spokesman for iiNet said yesterday: "We have never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copyright Act or the Telecommunications Act. We have always been, and will continue to be, a good corporate citizen and an even better copyright citizen".

Needless to say, AFACT said it was "disappointed" with the ruling, with their top man Neil Gane telling Billboard: "Today's decision is a set-back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry. But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding cantered on the court's interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISP's ability to control them".

If you're interested in this subject, CMU Business Editor Chris Cooke recently wrote a blog all about authorising infringement under English copyright law. You can read it here:

www.stuffbyme.co.uk/post/A-long-blog-on-music-copyright.aspx

If that sounds more tedious than pea soup for breakfast, here's an amusing iPad related visual gag.