Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd and others (the appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia against iiNet Ltd (the respondent), an internet service provider. The dispute concerned allegations that iiNet had authorised copyright infringement by its users. Specifically, users of iiNet's services were alleged to have infringed the copyright of the appellants' films by making them available online via the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file-sharing system. The appellants had served notices on iiNet alleging these infringements, but iiNet took no action in response.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether iiNet had authorised the copyright infringement carried out by its users, within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). This required the Court to consider the scope of the term "authorise" in the context of an internet service provider's role and responsibilities, particularly in light of the specific provisions of the Act relating to the matters to be taken into account when determining authorisation.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 101(1A) of the Copyright Act, which outlines factors to be considered when assessing authorisation. These factors include the extent of the alleged authoriser's power to prevent the infringement, the nature of the relationship between the alleged authoriser and the primary infringer, and whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent or avoid the infringement. The Court found that while iiNet had the technical capacity to identify customers associated with particular IP addresses at specific times, its power to prevent the actual infringement was limited. iiNet could not control subscribers' choice to use BitTorrent software, nor could it modify the software or remove infringing content. Furthermore, the Court considered whether iiNet had taken reasonable steps, noting that the appellants had not fully disclosed the methods used to gather evidence of infringement, and that the effectiveness of warnings or account terminations was not established. The Court also noted that iiNet was not to be taken to have authorised infringement merely by providing facilities for making content available online.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Full Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs.