The Federal Court summary is here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html The judge's

The Federal Court summary is here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html The judge's grasp of the issues came as a pleasant surprise to me. He summarizes the entire judgement in para 21: "In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement."