This is a solution to iiNet Case Study and goes through a stakeholder analysis. The iiNet case created widespread interest among the public in Australia, as well as abroad, due to its benchmark setting and ruling that was handed down by Justice Cowdroy, declaring that the internet service provider (ISP) did not authorise the infringements of copyright of its users. The use of the BitTorrent system for sharing large files relates to the speed of data transfer available to users on the internet. Where large files are concerned, it is harder for these to be shared if the regular transfer speeds are utilised and the normal system are the medium used to complete the transfer. Hence, the developers of the BitTorrent system devised a program that could be used to allow users to share these large resources with ease.
The case in the Federal Court was to decide the responsible authority allowing users to share resources that are copyrighted by third parties. In essence, the primary concern was the sharing of movies that were owned by large film production companies like Sony, Universal and Warner Brothers, as well as the piracy of original prints which cause a loss of revenue for all parties concerned with the industry. The other key player in court representing all those affected by the copyright violation was AFACT, which provided a consolidated representation of over 50,000 Australian involved in the entertainment business. Both AFACT and the production companies held iiNet, one of Australia’s largest ISPs, responsible for allowing users to share copyrighted and pirated resources, by enabling access to the BitTorrent system. The system allowed users of iiNet to actively seek and share movies over the internet, which affected the film companies due to a loss of revenue from actual sales, as most files were accessible without cost for the users, making it an attractive option to use when wanting to acquire any form of entertainment file.
The four key stakeholders in the trial all put up their own arguments, for and against the motion. iiNet claimed immunity from prosecution as it had applied a repeat infringer policy that complied with regulations prescribed under the Telecommunication Act. However, it advised that it could not be held responsible for the actions of users, using a third-party system on its resources. AFACT and the film production companies, who had initiated the motion, blamed iiNet for not taking stronger action against users who infringe on copyright, or sharing details so that federal action can be taken by the said organizations. The last stakeholder in the trial, in absentia, were the developers of the BitTorrent system, which provided the medium to perform the resource sharing and causing this ruckus from the affected consortium. iiNet maintained that as an ISP they were primarily responsible for providing users with a high-speed internet service, but were unable to control the software or alternative systems in use by their customers to perform any tasks. While they had implemented a repeat infringer policy, where any user detected of using the medium for illegal purposes could be removed from the ISP, there was no way of detecting each and every action of copyright violation as claimed by AFACT and the production consortium. Justice Cowdroy accepted the argument that the law did not require one person to have an obligation to protecting the copyright of another, especially if it was not within its means.
The ruling presented by the court was a welcome relief for the Australian and international internet industry, with some validation of the right of individuals to utilize the medium as they see fit, while giving ISPs the lease to not be held responsible for the actions of a certain few. The judge agreed that the using of the BitTorrent system as the proprietary software was not the fault of the ISP, or something that could be controlled by the ISP. Additionally, it was not iiNet’s responsibility to undertake any form of overview on how users utilize the BitTorrent system, even if it was used on their internet medium. It was not iiNet which was asking users to infringe on copyright of various companies, but rather users themselves accessing the items through a third-party provider of the software.
In conclusion, the case provided a valuable insight on the actions taken by film production companies to clamp down on the sharing of their products by users, through mediums that evade the generation of revenue for the companies. What it highlights is the lack of control that ISPs can exhibit on the actions of users and the utilization of third-party software like BitTorrent for such purposes being out of reach for the ISP. The key argument in the case is the freedom to be able to use the medium of the internet for what a user sees fit, as well as understanding that copyright violation can only occur once with a file, and not each time that file is accessed, as stated by Justice Cowdroy.