Wired chimes in on the decision. Whenever discussing an Australian news event, Wired always seem to somehow incorporate the phrase ‘Down Under’ into their titles. Cultural patronisation aside, their comments are much the same as everyone else’s:
Wilcox said it had been in the financial interest of Sharman and its partners “to maximize, not minimize, music file-sharing.”
He found six of the 10 defendants, including Sharman, its Sydney-based chief executive Nikki Hemming, as well as Altnet, a Sharman software partner, guilty of copyright infringement and ordered them to pay 90 per cent of the record industry’s costs in the case.
A hearing will be held later to establish damages. …
In a brief statement, Sharman said it would appeal and Kazaa software remained available online, with 800,000 downloads reported last week. Sharman says its software is no different from a tape recorder or photocopier — and that Kazaa could not control copyright infringement by users. …
“It is clear that the judge is concerned not to stop the technology completely but to try and work some middle line,” said Kim Weatherall, a lecturer in intellectual property law at Melbourne University.
Some observers have dismissed the decision as irrelevant given that the Kazaa network now accounts for under 10 per cent of P2P traffic. I would suggest, however, that Sharman License Holdings has a broader significance for Australian copyright law. First, it contributes substantially to the question of authorisation by applying Moorgate in a new, electronic context.
Secondly, as Professor Weatherall noted, the decision expressly acknowledges the public interest in appropriately shaping copyright law. Justice Wilcox spoke explicitly of the importance of balancing the interests of innovators and copyright holders. It will be interesting indeed to see whether a more normative approach to electronic copyright is adopted by the High Court.
