Some of the top posts on iiNet vs AFACT case
- 10 October, 2009 06:53
- Comments 16
Controversy over the iiNet vs AFACT case has sparked an influx of comments on online articles and forums. The wide range of comments stem from readers' views on whether Internet Service Providers should be liable for copyright infringements. While some comments are insightful and backed by analogies and factual references, others comments are pure entertainment. Below are what we thought are 10 of the best posts in the heated cyber debate.
"Unsustainable Business Model
The scopes of ISP are limited to providing internet connection and service to the end user. Policing the internet traffic is simply not within the scope of ISP and they are not required by law(unless the govt change the law). I agree with iinet stance and AFACT should do their job to enforce the copyright law through legal means on the user not the ISP.
If the copyright owner has a case backed with irrefutable evidence against the end user or iinet, why not sue them and bring them to court instead of asking the ISP to act on these allegations/accusations. Send in subpoena and file charges, not accusations or "alleging infringement" as a basis for punishment to the end user.
The right way to handle this is for the copyright owner to send the infringement notice to the user (through the ISP) detailing the copyright ownership, what has been infringed, how it was infringed , etc. This is simply to notify that the file that the user is downloading/uploading/providing contains copyright infringing materials or the file is copyrighted and therefore ask the user to remove the copyrighted file/material. Give time for the user to comply, else take em to civil court.
ISP simply pass the notice to the end user and not acting further than that. After all ISP is just the pipe not the police or the criminal. The message to AFACT: do your own job and let ISP do theirs.
IMO packet filtering cost a lot and dramatically slows down the internet connection, they are a liability which is contradictory to Kevin Rudd's promise to deliver fast national broadband connectivity."
"One of the ironic parts about about this story is that Village Roadshow posted a 470% increase in profits in August. This pretty much states the opposite to what they are claiming about piracy affecting profit margins.
They may win the battle, though it's very unlikely they will win the war. Piracy will move further underground and build yet more momentum as consumers either cannot afford the ridiculous prices ($30-$40 for a DVD or $20+ for a music cd) or choose to steal them to spite the industry.
If the studios/music companies just saved the money spent on copy protection and teams of lawyers and dropped the prices on cd's and dvd's by around 25% they would likely be seeing an influx of sales... Plus they would probably be turning over higher yearly profits as well."
"I think the most useful analogy here is that of a motorway operator being taken to court because they failed to bring down the toll gates after they had been notified that some trucks, cars (and maybe even motor bikes) where entering and exiting their roadways with contraband on board.
In this fairly clear case the operator has no right, or viable way, to stop and inspect the contents of vehicles in order to enforce such a suggestion. The police would have to conduct such an operation, with approriate cause and warrants in place. Why is there even a case?"
"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."
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- From ITfeed from Whirlpool
- iiNet: 3000 pages of copyright breach notices from 1350 emails in 7 days
- Telecom executives talk down expectations
- iiNet CEO Michael Malone to be ISP's first witness
- AFACT v iiNet - The bell sounds for round one
- From Stilgherrian on crickey.com.au—why afact v iinet is important
- From n00bvak on iTnews.com.au-- Day Two: iiNet, Westnet email trails revealed
- Case Study: Understand How Edith Cowan University has Regained Control of their Storage Environment
- 8 Critical Requirements for Secure Mobile File Sharing
- FIBRE CHANNEL SOLUTIONS GUIDE - state of the fibre channel industry
- Pathways Business Brochure 2012
- Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Disk-Based Backup/Recovery
- 3D mapping revives underwater city
- Academic challenges Turnbull over NBN satellite criticism
- What are you saying: Telstra’s customer service slowly improving, SA minister urging Facebook to overturn its photo ban
- In pictures: Capgemini opens new Canberra office
- Power profiles to help electronics go Green
-
Windows Event Viewer phishing scam remains active
-
NeuroSky MindWave: Fun with Brainwaves
-
20 popular Ubuntu Linux apps you may want to try
-
Nokia N9: Why you shouldn't buy this device
-
Microsoft at a loss over Event Viewer scam
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Microsoft Office
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
Comments
Anonymous
If someone travels by car to kill another person using a gun, do you sue the gun manufacturer, road authority and car manufacturer for allowing the law to be broken? Do you sue the Police for not stopping the murder? Do you sue the government for allowing the gun to be sold? No you don't. So how can you sue the ISP's for supplying a service to an end user who then does something illegal.
Isn't it illegal to record broadcast TV? Why are the manufacturers of Video Recorders, HD Recroders etc.. not being sued as well? If you record a television show or movie onto a video cassette, and then loan it to a friend or family member, that is considered the same as downloading similar material over the internet and breaching copyright?
Anonymous
$30 for a cd of 10 songs, $40 for a dvd, you have got to be joking. The studios are making increasing profits, they don't need my and yours business. I suggest the people pirate everything they can find because only then they will change. People should vote with their wallet and them hurt.
Anonymous
I believe that, if the companys want to own this copy right stuff maybe make things cheaper. I DO download stuff sometimes and do you know what...I for the price that you nead to pay at the store for the same thing i stupid ie. acdc cd 39.99 for 1(one) cd now thats ****ed. If the music company makse 2000 copys of this cd for the price that i just said how much do you think they made and thats just 2000. movies... dont even go there it cast about 100 dollars for a family of 3(three) to see one movie.to stop the piracy excuse maybe think of DROPPING the prices of movies/cd/ ect cause you will ALWAYS have this problem till you drop you very stupid and high prices...stop ripping people off and start thinking more and stop hitting the isp cause this will always be here (piracy) until such times things get cheaper till then you will never win. sorry but that is the trueth live with it everbody does why not you?
D.Newman
When it comes to all things internetty the Australian government which are behind all this, needs to drag its ass into the realms of reality and in most cases this decade.
The long list of face palm moments from Government officials and their ideas are making Austalia a joke, while the zenophobic view that sod what the rest of the world are doing we want to do this, is all fine and dandy, but there is a reason why the rest of the world handle things that way...ie its practical,workable and cost efficent to the companies, so further investment and devolpment can proceed.
Which brings me to my next point, motives for this action againest iinet, a company that supported the governments FTH broabband plan, but were againest the government putting in filters and running a black list, almost like what China was planning to do.
Now China has abandoned the plan as unworkable and unrealistic, err hello this is a communist state saying they cant do it, wake the hell up Conroy and co, get a clue, just build the damn broadband network, reap in the cash and shut the hell up, normally your good at this.
Anonymous
The only thing I could see is iiNet winning
or
a comprimise where iiNet will need to display a disclaimer, Education and acceptance of compliance dialog. (thereby shifting responsibility of actions undoubtedly on the end user.)
Much like many Corporate and School users face on internal networks employ.
VICRoads, NSW RTA
provide access to roads, traffic signals to the public.
They are responsible to maintain, patrol, safety, roads requirements and traffic coordination for the entire network of their state.
Vicroads and RTA ARE NOT! responsible for:
Fining and prosecuting stopping dangerous drivers.
Fining and prosecuting unregistered vehicles.
Fining and prosecuting unlicenced drivers.
Enforcing road rules.
Law enforcement officers are responsible for law enforcement.
Vicroads and RTA however do have responsiblility/obligations to
discourage unlawful behaviour
educating roads users
means to restrict uneducated or unregulated road users (registration and licencing)
Anonymous
Want to demonstrate how bad the prices of media recordings and games are? Show them we have had enough. Stop buying music, games and videos for 1 month and they WILL get the message. Moreover bands like Radiohead and companys like Valve (steampowered.com) have proved you don't need the middle man. Its not the artists that will end up finally suffering its the money grubbing middle men who will (well hopefully). Many of the things I have downloaded you just cant buy easily or at all anyway. Not withstanding Australian TVs inability to show every episode of a show, Star Trek, Battlestar and the list goes on and on! When things are easy to acquire and priced properly I buy them, eg Halflife, Team Fortress (Steampowered.com) and Radiohead. Oh, and DRM you can shove that as well.
Anonymous
Why this case shouldnt be in court at all -> See Motorway Analogy's
All that I have downloaded I would have never purchased anyway. Hence the companies have lost no profit whatsoever because if I couldnt pirate it I STILL WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED IT. If I like something enough to buy it (and it has to be freaking awesome) I will.
Enough Said!
gus blacker
these music/film companies are missing the point.how big is the internet ???. they do not need to make cd or dvd just upload every thing to the net so people can buy on line for a couple of $$$$. the net is a numbers game,it's about time these people woke up.
fires
If you sue their logic for copyright infringemnt, once they finish with iinet they will have to sue search companies such as yahoo, bing and google because they also facilitate the infringement by providing the search results and links to sites that provide the P2P networks and therefore are also co-contributing to piracy. Then you would have to sue companies like Microsoft for providing the internet browsers to be able to show the sites links etc.
catfish
The fact of the matter is its not about iinet its about the compaines trying to sue then they want more money and dont want to chase up the people who are downloading their products so they go after a target that if they win will do it for them never mind the fact that before you could download the price was still high and they are making more money now then ever why dont they just spend more time making better products and less on stupid law suits and make their products a bit cheaper they would see alot more sales and if i like a movie i download or song i will go out and buy it AS long as its worth buying
Anonymous
Use punctuation mate, bloody hard to read.
Anonymous
All of this has arisen because the music and movie industries have always seen the Internet, and its associated emerging technologies as a threat to the profits derived from their restrictive trade practices rather than a challenge that has the potential to provide even larger profits.
While AFACT may win a few skirmishes along the way, their persistence with the Canute Strategy is ultimately destined to fail and AFACT members will join the dinosaurs.
Anonymous
thats how it is with me! totally agree
TuffGuy
Another issue in this argument is pricing. Pricing is different in each country and on average we in Australia pay nearly double that of America. Why should we allow ourselves to be ripped off? Why should we pay more? Is it any wonder piracy is rife in Australia? This issue works two ways and they need to participate as well
davedrastic
If piracy were to continue, what will really happen? Will they stop making films? Not likely.They've still been churning them out as fast as ever - perhaps the lead actors will have to take a significant pay cut though. Will musicians stop making money? Even if this is the case, is it such a bad thing? Why do the successful artists need to become billionaires. Why do we need the marketing men to make the next Britney. Would it be so bad if the artists were made to struggle a little more, and perhaps those with the talent could strive to the top. Will publishers stop producing books? Let's hope so, global warming and all.
Sony got it right by protecting the PS3 against piracy so effectively. The other media organisations ought to do the same or accept their fate.
Anonymous
One thing that movie/music publishers don't consider when they rave about "reduced profits", is that perhaps their profits are being reduced because people "try before they buy" now. If I knew what britney spears' latest sounded like, I wouldn't buy it either.
Post new comment