UPDATE: Just came across a piece by Alex Malik, a lawyer who was doing a PhD on the copyright-infringement cases brought by MIPI. He said the Judge came down in favour of the recording industry on all counts...contradicting the "5 out of 6 charges dropped" comments mentioned below. This is probably the best piece to read...
ZDNet Australia: For those who missed it, last week Australian Judge Tamberlin declared that ISP ComCen and employee Chris Takoushis were guilty of "permitting or sanctioning and facilitating" copyright infringement for a page of links to MP3s put up by one of its customers. Some of the comments claim that 5 out of 6 charges were dropped, but I've yet to see the detailed analysis that followed the Grokster/StreamCast case, so to be honest I don't really know what is going on -- despite following the story in person for more than a year. One interesting media spat has been Peter Coroneos (head of Internet Industry Australia) downplaying the effect of the verdict, claiming that the case was very unique because the ISP in question had actively cooperated with the user. In response, Michael Kerin -- the new head of the Music Industry Piracy Investigations -- claimed the IIA was taking a 'head in the sand' approach because "Most relationships between ISPs and their customers would...feature a benefit being delivered to the ISPs, whether it be advertising and, or, increased traffic flow or otherwise".
Chris Jenkins at The Australian finished his article with a quote from the judgement:
"I do not accept that Bal and Takoushis were unaware of the contents of the site," Justice Tamberlin wrote..."The repeated evasiveness of Bal and Takoushis under cross-examination, their lack of frankness, and their failure to acknowledge an acquaintance with some basic matters of terminology such as 'webmaster' and 'MP3 files', support a conclusion that they were both involved in and aware of some problems with the operations of the website but decided no to further investigate or take any effective action in relation to the hosting of the website." Which is the first indication I've found that any journalist has actually read the judgement, or even parts of it.