iiNet: 3000 pages of copyright breach notices from 1350 emails in 7 days

Isn't their executive director Adrianne Pecotic?

Thanks for the laugh Teknophobe,
"I feel all ISP's should BAN torrent usage via T&C's"

I download free software, a recent example would be Open Office (free, look it up).
I elected to download via torrent as it is a reliable protocol. PLUS it alleviated the burden (cost) to Sun of hosting and serving the files on a traditional http or ftp server.

Your attack on torrents is "sinister almost to the point of Harrasment". Simply banning torrents won't stop file sharing. Movies are released on private ftp servers, over IRC and via usenet long before torrents. Torrents are simply convenient, but there are dozens of other convenient protocols that pirates can turn to.

The movie companies still haven't seen the light. The internet can be a great money making tool if they would learn to embrace it rather than fear it.

To Outlaw Bittorrent due to it's potential to be used to distribute illegal files is insane. Bittorent also enjoys many perfectly legitimate uses such as listed above. In addition the worlds most popular game, World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute updates.

If you want to apply a ban to bittorent then lets also apply a blanket ban to FTP/HTTP because they are also used to share files illegally (Rapidshare?). Then you have USENET News and IRC. Also lets ban MSN messenger and email as I can send a song to a friend using these.

The fact is all these technologies can be used to send files and it's up to the end users to determine what is sent. It shouldn't be the ISP's job to act on this (they should carry all content equally) and if AFACT or any other rights holder believes an end user is robbing them then take the end user to court and then the court will take action. An ISP who disconnects a customer on the back of a allegation (and that's all it is until found otherwise by a court of law) is leaving them self open to all sorts of problems.

It would be like the RTA taking your license off you because someone reported you speeding, without any independent verification of this and quite frankly if it were not true you would be quite angry.

The offenders are iiNet's customers not their staff.

When a company sells a product is has an obligation to provide something that is fit for purpose, it does not have an obligation to ensure that the customer uses the product legally.

Even in extreme cases like gun sales and provision of prescription drugs, the vendor has legislated checks and balances to apply in the sale process, but after that has no responsibility for the use of the product.

You are missing the point. The 'investigators' didn't do the same checks on Optus & Telstra. Perhaps this is because their pay-tv companies are owned by these same Hollywood movie studios! The goal is to establish only 2 internet companies in Australia ahead of the Fed's fast broadband initiative. Then this cosy duopoly will be in charge - and charging for - of all downloads, phone, pipes - everything.

Finally, teknophobe, someone has the courage to say it. These violators must be stopped. Why, the other day I heard my flatmate singing Les Miserable in the shower. This was a crime on many levels.

Technology just enables crime. It needs to be stopped.

It's only safe to assume that the AFACT has absolutely no idea of australian law - and that they completely disagree with the way the country is run.

This is not good.

They don't want to follow due process to convict people for copyright theft, none of of thse are copyright breaches until proven in court.

iinet legally are not liable and if a federal court judge can't see this then i've lost faith.

i'll sum it up with, iinet don't have to do what the AFUKD do unless they manage to get a court order. Which they haven't.

This case has to be the most stupid i have ever seen. You dont see this in America were they dont have download limits or in the united kingdom or the rest of europe for that matter.

The key reason for this being that the movie industry would A never attempt to target ISP's in these regions simply because the population is so big and there are alot more tech savy people there than your average Australian, the backlash from consumers would be far to great. To me this is just a set group of companies and individuals trying to make a cheap dollar. They dont realise that you need to change your business model in this day and age, a good example of this is Apples Itunes and a range of monthly subscription sites were you pay to listen or view whatever you want for a set period of time (i found out about this when i was in sweden recently). If anything the movie industry should sue seagate and western digital or anyone who manufactures media players because clearly they give you the need to want music movies and games etc, and the ability to infrige. its not like ISP post links on their site on were to download this stuff and what programs to use. People have to actively research how to infringe on copyright, i mean seriously you dont sue a gun company or a fast food business because of the way they use the product, like sorry were going to sue gun company x because jonny bought a gun from you and then proceeded to kill people at school because of it, and because you are the gun manufacture and provided the gun its your responsibility clearly, i mean get real. Another example would be a fat persons family sueing a fast food company because they allowed them to purchased large amounts of food from there business on a regular basis, come on get real, although that would be funny sorry sir im afraid i cant serve you because clearly you are to fat, and i for some reason have a duty of care for you. This same model applies to ISP's when you sign up with an ISP they dont know what you intend to do with their service and they have privacy requirements about monitoring your traffic, lol maybe with the exception of TPG, if you really wanted to sue a company that is allowing people to infridge TPG would be the one because of the huge download limits. if anything iinet and internode are two of the most responsible ISP's in Australia as they provide free content download from businesses like Apple Itunes, TIVO and blockbuster, giving active measures to make it easy for average users to download content legally.

Really download limits dont even come into this arguement because the rest of the world doesnt have them, and if the rest of the world did then the internet would not have come as far as it has in regards to media eg Youtube wouldnt be a viable option due to the amount of streaming required etc. or if sites and media did then ISP's would be super rich and being a share holder would be the best thing you could do.

anyways i feel like i have ranted enough, at the end of the day this falls on def ears, simple put if someone wants to make money at the expense of someone else they will try there hardest to do so. film companies sue ISP's to make money simple as.