Federal Court Justice Murray Wilcox ruled that the evidence obtained via an Anton Piller order (a civil equivalent of a search warrant) was admissible, despite arguments from Sharman lawyers that the materials seized in the raids violated a non-disclosure rule as they contained information relating to an ongoing case in the U.S.
The raids entailed seizure of material from Sharman and its associated companies; the Australian arm, Brilliant Digital Entertainment (BDE) of one of its partners, Altnet; executives from Sharman and other other companies as well as other parties, including Telstra. Lawyers representing BDE and its executive Kevin Burmeister had also sought the setting aside of the Anton Piller orders. However, the Justice's rulings encompassed the BDE application.
Michael Speck, general manager of the music industry's piracy investigations unit, says the court's decision today confirmed all the reasons for getting the order and now, he says, "its time to get on with the case."
"Today was a total win for copyright owners," said Speck, adding "Their [Sharman's] actions have taken massive opportunities away from legal music services in this country."
Wilcox said in a statement released following the court proceeding that the purpose of the Anton Piller order was to prevent the destruction of material that may relate to the case. However, the material that was sought to be preserved was different to the documentation relevant in the US proceedings.
"The important point about this list [of US subpoenaed evidence] is that none of the items includes material (even in electronic form) recording transitory information; that is data concerning the moment to moment transactions undertaken by users of Kazaa," stated Justice Wilcox.
He adds that the Anton Piller order "does just that", as the order authorised the recovery of data that "must be constantly changing."
"In an ideal world it would be preferable for parties not to need to resort to Anton Piller action," said Justice Wilcox, adding, however, that in this case there was little other alternative to "taking a 'snapshot' of the scheme in operation".
Wilcox states that if were to have to make the decision to approve an Anton Piller order again in the same circumstances as those of 5 February 2004, he would take similar action.
"Evidence about dynamic operation is available on relevant computers, from moment to moment, as the transactions occur. If that evidence is to be available at the trial, there must be 'snapshots', perhaps many snapshots, showing the changing data in the system moment to moment," explains Justice Wilcox.
The judge said during court proceeding that it would be desirable for the parties to consult about the material taken on the 6 February 2004, to rectify any incidence of mistakenly confiscated material that may fall outside the authority of Anton Piller orders.
The principal proceeding of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd and Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2004] is scheduled to be held on 23 of March 2004.
