A case brought against one of Australia's ISP's by the "Corporate Entertainment Alliance of America" has been decided in the favor of the ISP. I am not pro piracy but it does irk me when I see the logic used by these corporate behemoths to bludgeon smaller businesses into doing things as they dictate.
The companies claimed iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users engaging in illegal file sharing.
But today the Federal Court ruled in the internet service provider's favour.
Justice Dennis Cowdroy said it was "impossible" to find against iiNet for what its users did.
"It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement ... (it) did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring," Justice Cowdroy he said.
The judge ordered the studios to pay the court costs.
The case could potentially set a precedent establishing to what extent Australian internet companies are responsible for illegal downloads on their systems.
The movie houses said iiNet did not do anything to stop its customers from illegally sharing movies and TV programs.
But iiNet said privacy and freedom of speech laws would have been breached if the companies' demands were met.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htmOne win for common sense obviously requires a balancing act and in the opposite corner we have the loss of a copyright infringement case by Men at Work for their song "Down Under".
Larrikin Music accused the band of stealing the song's flute riff from the children's song Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree, which Larrikin owns the rights to.
The company sought compensation from Down Under songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert.
The Federal Court has ruled in Larrikin's favour.A bit of perspective here: Yes, the extremely short 4 beat flute melody is similar but what is not is the context. I grew up like a lot of school kids singing the Kookaburra song. The Kookaburra song has this melody as its main and focal melody. The Down under song has this melody as an accompaniment after riff which is played a lot faster and almost indiscernible as the same melody due to the nuance its played with. I'm not a copyright lawyer but I would have thought that logic would dictate weather a bunch of the same notes played differently resulted in plagiarism or not. Obviously in this case not. Did the flute riff result in the song being a hit? I think not. (cant believe I'm supporting a Sony/BMG owned song
)
