February 2004: The music industry piracy investigations unit conducts raids on Sharman Networks, associated company Altnet, the homes of executives of both companies, a number of Internet service providers and universities, looking for evidence that can be used in litigation over the peer-to-peer software Kazaa.
March 2004: Federal Court of Australia Justice Murray Wilcox denies applications from Sharman and Altnet to have the evidence seized under the so-called Anton Pillar civil search orders ruled inadmissible.
July 2004: Justice Wilcox sets trial date in November, directing discovery and affidavit processes be completed by October.
November 2004: Trial kicks off with record labels' legal representative Tony Bannon accusing Sharman and associated respondents of benefiting from copyright-infringing behaviour undertaken by the users of Kazaa.
March 2005: Assets of key respondents Nikki Hemming and Kevin Bermeister, as well as their companies, Sharman and Altnet, frozen after court heard they had sold multi-million dollar properties to third parties. Closing statements heard on March 22 and 23.
September 2005: Judgement handed down.
Source: ZDNet Australia research
On September 5, Justice Murray Wilcox ruled largely in favour of music labels, including Universal, Sony, Warner and Festival Mushroom, saying Sharman Networks and other parties had authorised users to infringe music industry copyright.
The labels had also targeted United States-based Altnet, which provides search technology for Kazaa and is a close partner of Sharman.
The road to the trial began in February 2004 when the music industry piracy investigations unit conducted raids on Sharman Networks, Altnet, the homes of executives of both companies, a number of ISPs and universities looking for evidence that could be used in litigation over Kazaa.
The main players
Applicants: Record labels (including Universal, Sony, Warner and Festival Mushroom)
Respondents: Sharman Networks, LEF Interactive, Sharman CEO Nicole Hemming, Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment boss Kevin Bermeister, Sharman License Holdings, Sharman chief technology officer Philip Morle, Brilliant Digital Entertainment and Altnet CTO Anthony Rose.
Federal Court Judge: Justice Murray Wilcox
Highlights of the landmark ruling
- Sharman Networks and others directed to modify file-sharing software Kazaa to ensure users don't dabble in copyright-infringing activities.
- The infringing respondents -- Sharman Networks, LEF Interactive, Sharman CEO Nicole Hemming, Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment boss Kevin Bermeister ordered to pay 90 percent of the music industry's legal bills. A separate hearing to determine claims for damages will be held at a later date.
- Federal Court dismissed the music industry's claims the respondents contravened the Trade Practices Act and engaged in conspiracy.
- Charges against Sharman License Holdings, Sharman chief technology officer Philip Morle, Brilliant Digital Entertainment and Altnet CTO Anthony Rose were dismissed.
- Sharman plans to appeal the ruling.
Latest coverage
Kazaa appeal likely in 2006
Any appeal by key players associated with the Kazaa file-sharing software will only be heard in February or March next year.
Published 06 September 2005 06:07 PM
Sharman to fight Kazaa verdict
Sharman Networks has announced it will appeal a Federal Court ruling that several respondents associated with the company had authorised infringment of music industry copyright and that it must introduce filters to the Kazaa file-sharing software.
Published 05 September 2005 07:08 PM
Music industry claims Kazaa win
The Federal Court of Australia has dealt a heavy blow to the managers of Kazaa, finding they had authorised users to infringe music industry copyright.
Published 05 September 2005 07:05 PM
Previous coverage
Music industry tailed Sharman boss
The music industry's piracy investigations unit conducts extensive surveillance of the Sydney north shore house owned by Sharman Networks CEO.
Published 30 May 2005 12:28 PM
Sharman, others plead innocence
Sharman Networks and associated parties collectively deny copyright infringement accusations directed against them by recording companies.
Published 23 March 2005 06:22 PM
Kazaa will meet Napster's fate
A focus group in Australia sees Kazaa's image as a "free music concept" that would come to an end similar to Napster.
Published 16 December 2004 06:07 PM
Gee, I wonder if Apple et al, will get taken to court for authorising copyright infringement, I doubt it. I believe Itunes (and the rest) has cd ripping technology in it, which infringes Australian copyright. Ipods et al, can be used legally, but so can p2p. Kazaa would probably do well to point this out on appeal. Will Sony take themselves to court....?