My lecturer in Internet Law, Kim Weatherall, has a post up on the Kazaa judgment released yesterday.
The most interesting bit:
What is the immediate result of the case?
What Wilcox has done is make certain orders:
- declarations of infringement;
- an injunction against continuing authorisation of infringement, stayed for 2 months in light of the next order;
- instructions to avoid this injunction shutting down P2P software entirely: the court thinks that modifications should be made to the technology, and has instructed the parties to agree to a protocol or will approve one himself - the court has also outlined some steps the judge thinks could be done;
- an order for pecuniary relief (ie, damages) - the amount reserved for determination at a later hearing;
- an order that the respondents (Sharman parties) pay 90% of the copyright owners’ costs (this would be on a party/party basis, so wouldn’t be the full amount expended by copyright owners. Still, it will be significant).
What, the judge wants to re-design the technology of Kazaa?
Yes, Justice Wilcox has decided that he is quite prepared to get into the nitty-gritty of the technology. He has ordered the parties to agree a protocol whereby filtering (of some kind) may be imposed into the software.
Weatherall’s Law - Justice Wilcox is a brave judge: some initial comments on the Kazaa judgment
AUSTLII - Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (includes summary) [2005] FCA 1242 (5 September 2005)
