Top posts on iiNet vs AFACT case: Part II
- 17 October, 2009 08:40
- Comments 51
Controversy over the ongoing iiNet vs AFACT case has once again sparked an influx of comments on online articles and forums. As the second week of the case draws to a close, we take a look at the top posts, many from people brave enough to predict a winner.
AFACT is wrong in bringing this action. Their members are responsible for policing and protecting their copyright not the ISPs. The have brought on this case because iNet will nor dicipline it's users when reported by AFACT. However to deny service on AFACT notice would leave iNet open to legal action because at this stage it is merely an unproven and unsupported accusation. AFACT should procede to charge the people with piracy before the courts and once they have a conviction then the ISP would be bound to deny service or suspend their account. AFACT is just looking for a scapegoat to do their copyright policework for them.
From hellfire on Computerworld.com.au — AFACT has already notched up a win in copyright case
If iinet is liable for illegal downloads, should Telstra (or any phone carrier) be held liable for allowing criminals to make phone calls?
From Anonymous on Computerworld.com.au — AFACT has already notched up a win in copyright case
Copyright infringement hmm - isn't this what we have done for years when we've record music from a radio station and play it back later .. or record a TV programme on our VCR and play it back at a later date to watch .. without any concerns at all being raised for years. All of a sudden AFACT decide they are going to make a stand and try and turn us into criminals .. they had better be careful that the same people they are targeting don't use the WWW to start campaigns, send e-mails, make websites to boycott the very films, records and songs, books they are trying to protect. What would happen to their precious advertising revenue when ordinarily everyday Australians get their backs up and refuse to watch any movies or listen to any music or buy any books of the companies involved in this action. Do they think that the film star, music artist or advertising dollar would stay with them for long if it was against popular opinion and lost public support. AFACT are biting the hand that feeds them!
From Anonymous on Computerworld.com.au — AFACT has already notched up a win in copyright case
An ISP is simply a service provider, just like a power company.A service provider supplies a service to a customer nothing more. Is a power company to be held responsible for what people(end users) do with the power that they provide. Should a power company be charged because somebody uses the power provided to run a hydroponics system to illegally produce cannabis? Or a water company be charged for "allowing" the water to be used for illegal purposes? What people choose to use a provided service for is not the responsibility of the service provider it is the responsibility of the end user as an individual to abide by the law. A hardware store is not charged because they sold a can of spray paint and somebody chose to use that can of paint to create graffiti on a public building. A fertiliser company is not charged for providing a bag of fertiliser to a customer who then turns that fertiliser into a bomb. Large corporations use their financial muscle and paid political influence to force laws on the people in order to increase their profits. We no longer live in a Democracy ie rule by the people. We now live in a Corpocracy where corporations rule and the people are just cannon fodder used to create profits.
From Lightning on Computerworld.com.au — AFACT has already notched up a win in copyright case
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- AFACT has already notched up a win in copyright case
- From herm546 on iTwire —AFACT, iiNet head for the recess playground
- From Anonymous on ZDNet Australia —AFACT: Our evidence not 100% reliable
- Anonymous on ZDNet Australia — Kazaa witness takes iiTrial stand
- Anonymous on ZDNet Australia — Kazaa witness takes iiTrial stand
- From saiphon on Whirlpool
- From Shiv on iTnews.com.au — Day Eight: AFACT solicitor grilled on ISP disconnections
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
Chambers: Networking's changing competitive landscape
-
The NBN, service providers and you... what could go wrong?
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
FTC chairman: Do-not-track law may not be needed
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Microsoft Office
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
Comments
Anonymous
Between this mess & the Minister's censorship rubbish I stand to make a fortune selling encrypted proxy access to the full Internet via a less-backward country.
Dan
"If iinet is liable for illegal downloads, should Telstra (or any phone carrier) be held liable for allowing criminals to make phone calls?"
It's a fundamentally different proposition, as the information transmitted is not criminal in nature, but simply an illegal copy of someone elses intellectual property.
Trevor
I think most people are being blinded by the smokescreen that AFACT are putting up. It is all about MONEY!!!!. Principles do not enter into it because if they did the AFACT would be found seriously in need. They are bleeding financially because of an insatiable greed and are looking for heavy handed methods to stem the flow. We were promised cheaper CD's DVD's - didn't happen,
content of movies and television show is rapidly reaching the realms of being unwatchable and I resent record companies tell me who THEY think is worth listening to. Software manufacturers are a class of their own. Who else in this world can sell an item that is full of bugs, at an inflated price and when we have bought it and suffered the frustrations of the said bugs they bring out an update which they expect us to pay highly for. Greed will be our demise unless we wake up and see it for what it is.
Bozz
Fact one: AFACT members boast about there latest hit movie making 80 million in the first week and so on? There target market is 8 - 18 year old kids for the best part which have a low disposable income if any. Fact two: is life has changed where people want media on demand to suit there life style? AFACT and there members need to get with times. Affordable on demand streaming of movies and music! A little from many is better than some from a few! iiNet are not to blame, AFACT and its members are to blame for there greedy and totally out of touch practices. These greedy practices are the reason we have a world recession and the reason why many download music and movies?
Mick
What a joke this all is - as has been highlighted, iiNet are a service provider.
AFACT are costing their client's $$, so it's almost expected that they get some results (not to mention iiNet's time and defence expense).
It's a shame that the legal system doesn't have a 'BS meter' like teachers do at school, that they waved over an essay and it determined whether they would accept it or not.
Another interesting issue here is, that some parts of iiNet's network lease Telstra's - I don't see AFACT going them...wonder why?
Also - bringing the 'service provider model' back to simple terms - 'roads'. Who 'owns' them? A robbery, mugging, simply you're late to work...does this now set the model that we can sue the Govt. for all sort of things cause we use their roads?
People are dying in this world!!
AFACT instead of fighting the internet, should look to see how to embrace it. CDs = scratched media, sd cards= why not. Why not have 'all you can eat' plans/month? movies/music etc etc.
They need to change their mindset or they'll be left behind.
IHATEIDIOTS
Look AFACT if you so worried about people watching you movies for nothing I have the solution. Go back to the old days and only let them be seen at the Movies. Because you are a heart filled organisation do the community thing and let TV have them when 99% of the people have payed you to see them.
Just to let you know i find you responsible for my unhealthy kids sitting on my lounge.
Oh! Its my responsiblity for letting the watch them. Well Thats AFACT.
[DBB]5k1LL5
AFACT don't have a leg to stand on with this one. It would take a very activist judge to rule in their favour. Even if they do have a win, it will be overruled by the High Court.
This is a matter for public policy, something which will be very unpalatable to any government because of the ubiquity of file sharing and the economic value and efficiency it adds to the marketplace.
Take as an example the impact of caching web content. It saves bandwidth, power and time, yet anyone caching most of the pictures on this page in their firewall or server is technically infringing on copyright law when their server redistributes them to another computer on local network or VPN.
The law needs an overhaul and the only way to do it is to all but remove copyright protection for broadcastable content. Controlling it is simply not an option any more.
Anti Pirate
ISP's aiding pirates to make money for themselves - that's what this is about.
The majority of these posts are clearly from people who want to justify their illegal use of pirated material.
What the movie companies want is simple: IF AN ISP IS NOTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE A CUSTOMER WHO IS SHARING ILLEGAL MATERIAL VIA BIT-TORRENT ETC THE ISP SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CLOSE THAT PERSONS ACCOUNT.
Arguments against this position are nonsense. A good example of this nonsense is the comment by "Lightning"- "Should a power company be charged because somebody uses the power provided to run a hydroponics system to illegally produce cannabis? "
If the ELECTRICITY PROVIDER IS NOTIFIED THAT AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, THEN THE SHOULD CUT THE ELECTRICITY. If they don't then they are "aiding and abetting", which is what this is all about.
ISPs around the world are aiding and abetting the use of pirated material. If they are advised of who this is, then they should respond. It's that simple.
Multi-millionaire IINET CEO Michael Malone should be ashamed of himself. The only reason he's fighting the case is because he wants to take money from every single person possible, even if they are distributing illegal material. As usual, it's all about $$$.
Please note -- I do not work for any of the film Studios or their legal advisors.
I work as an Australian film producer who wants to make films, but can't because piracy is destroying our only source of income which in turn means we can't finance our projects.
Ardnerus
This is all about ... GREED! I don't think I need to elaborate much more, most readers (who are also consumers) know this.
Buddy
AFACT and their top heavy corporate interests should be ashamed of themselves. The only reason they are fighting the case is because they want to take money from every single person possible, even if they have to criminalise and hurt otherwise innocent people. As usual, it's all about $$$. How ironic.
Anonymous
Next they're going to hold postal companies accountable for transporting bootleg DVDs. Clearly they should violate their customers privacy in the interests of oh-so-important copyrights!
Anonymous
AFACT can determine who is right or wrong and make ISPs take action without taking the matter and alleged persons to trial? What if more than one person is sharing an account and the owner unaware of illegal activity on his/her account? Does this imply further investigation is required to identify the real perpetrators? What if the persons distributing illegal content is in fact a victim, his/her computer zombified and made part of a botnet? Should we charge McDonalds for allowing less conscientious users using its WIFI for illegal activities?
Anonymous
Even if AFACT were to win, people will just do a little more research and instead download stuff though means that don't put their IP address out in some fishable list.
Dowza
You say people downloading illegally are saying no to due their interests clashing when yours are the same being a producer making movies you want to drain as much as you can.
Also it is not a crime to 'download' I believe but it is a crime to upload the content and share it. How can you be sure that what people are downloading is 'violating' copyright law in the first place? You would require people on the sites downloading things illegally. Or worse, sharing them illegally. So are you not breaking the law in the first place? This makes me sick. It is entrapment when they are allowed to put the files there and then reprimand people for downloading them *from* agents in there directly. These agents won't be getting reprimands, are they above the law? If a SINGLE person gets their internet account locked for this then the agents should as well. They are not police. They are not above the law.
I could go out there with a bag of flour and sell it to kids as cocaine, then arrest the kids for possession. But I'd be laughed at and sent to court myself. Piracy is not destroying your income, your own greed is. Many people would buy maybe 1/30th of the content that they download through torrents. Also the electricity company? They just inform the police when there are high levels of power usage consistent with hydroponics plants.
You can't make up your own laws, skew the truth when in fact you are entrapping someone to perform an illegal activity. My advice? Suck an egg, because illegal content is just shifting to mediums where 'agents' won't be able to so stupidly trap people.
Any worthwhile downloading moron would be using a proxy anyway, so you are just going to be 'catching' poor college kids who can't afford $40 for an album or $20+ for a single DVD.
Anonymous
Anti-Pirate's Quote: What the movie companies want is simple: IF AN ISP IS NOTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE A CUSTOMER WHO IS SHARING ILLEGAL MATERIAL VIA BIT-TORRENT ETC THE ISP SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CLOSE THAT PERSONS ACCOUNT.
Under Australian Law what you have just said is an allegation, it only becomes a fact under the law once the person has been found guilty of said offense. Or are you suggesting we should circumvent our legal system just for you?
I don't at all mind paying to watch movies, tv shows or listen to music. However the movie companies, tv studios and music producers are so out of touch in being able to provide access to their materials at a small cost.
On iTunes, an episode of a show will set you back between $1.99 to $2.99, I can go to my local video store and pick up 4 episodes on one dvd for just 99c!! On certain days of the week I can hire out a new release movie for just $1.99!
The movie and tv studios, the music producers, all have the oppurtunity to provide the facility for people to download what they produce for a small cost to the consumer thus getting them more money. They have chosen not to do so.
Anonymous
Newsflash Mate. If you have had the misfortune to ever be involved with the Australian Legal system, you will find that you are considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Legal Aid won't fund you for any lawyer worth a damn, unless of course you plead guilty. If you actually want a lawyer that cares whether he/she wins or loses then you need to be a millionaire because that is what the price of innocence amounts to in Australia.
Anonymous
AFACT's and Conroy's position and statements are ethically despicable and disgusting. They are quite simply in contempt of the principles of law and democracy. They are trying a show-case as a demonstration of power and let's face it, to the benefit of a few who provide little to no benefit to society beyond entertainment. This has little to do with justice and everything to do with the power of the state and it's application at the behest of vested interests. Should AFACT and the money-moguls behind it win, it will set Australia back for many years to come. What's next? Will my ISP filter all my downloads to see whether 'illegal' downloads have been interlaced with legal ones? It's just disgusting. Here we have some m.f.'ing greedy moguls and celeb's earning millions and millions and they are scrapping to squeeze every last cent. As for Conroy, what a publicity hungry hypocrite. You know, if it were at least for something more than just the money of those who are already filthy rich...
What disgust me the most (as you can tell disgust is prevalent) is that AFACT and Conroy treat everyone like fools. Using their reasoning one shuld take all road authorities to court for the failure to ensure all posted laws are adhered to and for not identifying and closing down those who are in breech. Sound familiar?
Anonymous
It is a known fact to a few high up people in the movie industry that a movie is released onto the internet before its release date so that the movie companies can then make more income from pursuing certain ISP's and Internet users when that uploaded film is Pirated by individuals.
This is not about Copyright as the Film Industry are the Original holders of such Copyrighted Material this is all about making extra Income not for the Movie Industry itself but about High up Executives being paid their High Salaries.
How do i know? Guess what my job is?
Anonymous
What a crock of sh**. First, the arrogant presumption that anyone who is against the further erosion of privacy and democracy is supporting piracy should suffice to show your self-indulgent arrogance. Using that line of pretense, I could say that you are just annoyed because nobody wants you as a producer. Second, put some facts on the table. How much money is truly lost due to piracy? How much moeny is paid to celeb actors? How much money is paid to industry moguls? How much money is paid to legal departments? You get it?
Which leads to a second, much more telling picture of the oh so poor entertainment industry. Where else can one charge the client each and every time for the identical product delivered? And at what prices? $15 to see a movie? And don't ever try and tell anyone that $30+ is a fair price for a DVD. How much of that is profit? And lets not forget the huge amounts of money spent on such ludicrous events as multiple rewards shows, huge PR costs and all the whims of a truly pampered industry.
The point is very simple: The market is increasingly intolerant of this pricing. In a market economy this means that people will seek alternatives.
Let me spell it out to you as it's really simple: If piracy was entirely removed tomorrow, it would NOT bring that same amount back in as revenue. People will just stop paying through the nose and spend their money elsewhere. It's simply a case where an industry has no answer to the market and can't come up with anything else than to sue. There is also a lot to be said for the argument that piracy is largely a reaction to a oligopoly and racketeering that has been ripping off customers.
Here's a tip: Make movies that are worthwhile to see on the big screen, produce quality and write everything else off as marketing. I'd love to see some real numbers on how much you folk spend on crap and how much piracy really costs you.
And guess what? I pay. This at least for me is not about money.
I tip my hat to Mr. Malone!
Anonymous
circus clown?
bjb
copywright is questable after a movie has been
played tv internet or music played over radio or
in a public place. also older movies and music
i have seen some late movies with parts of older films under another name also music that is very old ones that somebody has put new words to that
i would concider as pirateing?????
AnInternetUser
AFACT should be aware that when I purchased some DVDs for backups at an electronic retail chain, the salesperson assumed I intended, and encouraged me, to copy video DVDs, and that I would require some other products. This goes far beyond an ISP providing internet access in terms of "authorisation" of copyright infringement. This seems very legally inconsistent.
I can supply details, and expect that if iiNet is guilty of anything, then this retailer is more guilty, and MUST be sued by AFACT.
Or perhaps if AFACT wins the case, the police would be obliged to take action to seize offending stock from the retailer which facilitates copyright infringement.
Zac
1. iinet is being used as a test case and if successful will used on other ISP's in Australia and other countries. Success is not certain though.
2. This is a back door approach for getting ISP's to police and monitor their customers. They tried this before and it failed, this is also a smokescreen for this.
3. Retail prices of CD/DVD are too high $30-$40 for 10 songs and a 90min movie. 98% of people are not going to suddenly go out and buy them.
4. Profits from movie screenings continue to increase.
5. This is so wrong on so many levels that it should be laughed out of court.
6. 98% of people 'pirate' out of necessity. That is, the movie, documentry, music are not avialable locally, will never be, or many years of delay.
We live in the internet world where we know this stuff exists. AFACT refuses to acknowledge reality.
7. Excess corporate greed and power are the cause of this.
Addinall
This is ridiculous, and I hope MM sues them for damages and malicious action. I have been a software/network engineer for nearly thirty years and had the very great pleasure in having MM as a boss some time ago. Not only is it not the responsibility of an ISP what the users of the service download/upload/mail/chat, it is BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE TO MONITOR! How do you examine a packet, with a 1500MTU over a TCP/IP connection and decide if it is a 'pirate' movie?
And how does that work when 10,000 packet are moving in and out per second? The traffic iiNet carries also traverses Telstra and OPTUS networks, including switches, routers, RIMs etc. Are they also to be charged?
Brad
I don't want to comment on the court case while it is in progress. In general I believe the infringement of Copyright for movies and music is the responsibility of the person posting the material and the person who downloads the material. Here is Australia there has been a lot of commentary on the filtering technology the Govt want for blocking things like child pornography.
Is the downloading of this sort of illegal material also the responsibility of the ISP? Clearly not. The police go after the perpetrators and rightly so.
AFACT as far as I know have not been confused for the police and their forensic methods have not been held up to scrutiny in courts before. Are their searches even legal? Can I go into a neighbour's house and look for evidence of theft?
This whole thing is very troubling. What if AFACT gets their funding based on results. Would this encourage dishonest behaviour to ensure funding?
Perhaps it would be better to set up an independent judicial panel or ombudsman to balance the rights of individuals against the rights of the copyright holders with the power to investigate groups like AFACT or the ISP's if they are engaged in illegal behaviour. Minister Conroy you should be paying attention to this.
Anonymous
Here here!
jennifer
Do we sue the power companys for providing the power so a drug supplier can grow his plants in doors or the water company ....it seems as tho these companys go without any pentalies, as ppl we know that growing and dealing is wrong but still do it,, it has became away of life, which is sad really,no matter which way you look at it everyone is breaking the copyright law at some point in their life, even down to using a word, and there are some words which are copyright, the WORLD has gone mad with it and so over board,
Anonymous
Sat, 17/10/2009 - 09:43 —
Sat, 17/10/2009 - 09:43 — Anti Pirate
If the ELECTRICITY PROVIDER IS NOTIFIED THAT AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, THEN THE SHOULD CUT THE ELECTRICITY. If they don't then they are "aiding and abetting", which is what this is all about.
Sorry to burst your bubble anti-pirate, but having worked in teh energy industry, as long as teh customer is paying their bills the power company can not cut them off as there is a contract between teh customer and teh power company.
That sort of screws up your whole argument doesn't it.
By the way, if you want to make movies then make some that people want to watch and then stream them via the web direct to the consumer, it will make you more money
Brewski81
Dear Anti Pirate,
How can you
Dear Anti Pirate,
How can you say you are not able to make films due to Piracy ruining the source of income which finances your projects?
Film companies are still making massive profits (some are even making record profits).
As a hypothetical, if a member of your family was murdered. The murderer drove in a car to the crime scene and shot them with a pistol. Would you sue the Road Authority for allowing the person to drive to the scene? Would you sue the gun manufacturer? Would you sue the Police for not stopping the murder in advance? Would you sue the government for running the country that allowed this person to murder?
As has been said in previous comments, the requests from AFACT (or the movie companies) to the ISP's to disconnect their customers accounts for supposed copyright infringement is not legal. This is giving the AFACT companies the right to be Judge, Jury & Executioner without the end user being able to prove themselves innocent. I am pretty sure that for someone to be guilty of a crime, this needs to be proven in a Court of Law by a Jury of their peers (or possibly a Judge in our country).
Lastly, did you ever think that the reason you can't make these films is the fact that 99.9% of Australian Films that are ever made are complete rubbish?
Anonymous
The definition of THEFT is to deprive someone else of their property. Copying without removing the original does not make criminals of thousands of computer users. Australian Federation Against Copyright Borrowing just doesn't sound as emotive, does it? Throw this time wasting rubbish out of court now and impose significant punitive damages for slander!
John Roket
IF you think that this court case is wrong because you are not getting your entertainment product made to your subjective quality standard, at a price you are prepared to pay and delivered in a way that is convenient to you (on-line rather than as a DVD) and you justify your actions because the makers of these products are greedy and you are simply punishing them for not giving it to you 'your way' and you claim you will pay when THEY get it right and do it your way, you are simply a greedy IDIOT and a thief and are selfish beyond reason. Hope iiNet loses and AFACT set a precedent they enforce WORLDWIDE. YOU SHOULD BE COMPLAINING TO YOUR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO CHANGE THE LAW AND MAKE IT LEGAL TO DISTRIBUTE FREE COPIES OF WORK THAT COST MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO PRODUCE, don't complain because some companies that MADE the product to make money are trying to enforce their rights under the law. I can't believe how many stupid people there are whinging on here. If you don't like it or can't afford it, DON'T BUY IT. Would love to see how you feel when you make spend alot of time and money making something of value and people copy it and give it away for free and you make NO MONEY from it...
John Roket
YOU ARE ALL A PACK OF IDIOTS. IF you think that this court case is wrong because you are not getting your entertainment product made to your subjective quality standard, at a price you are prepared to pay and delivered in a way that is convenient to you (on-line rather than as a DVD) and you justify your actions because the makers of these products are greedy and you are simply punishing them for not giving it to you 'your way' and you claim you will pay when THEY get it right and do it your way, you are simply a greedy IDIOT and a thief and are selfish beyond reason. Hope iiNet loses and AFACT set a precedent they enforce WORLDWIDE. YOU SHOULD BE COMPLAINING TO YOUR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO CHANGE THE LAW AND MAKE IT LEGAL TO DISTRIBUTE FREE COPIES OF WORK THAT COST MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO PRODUCE, don't complain because some companies that MADE the product to make money are trying to enforce their rights under the law. I can't believe how many stupid people there are whinging on here. If you don't like it or can't afford it, DON'T BUY IT. Would love to see how you feel when you spend alot of time and money making something of value and people copy it and give it away for free and you make NO MONEY from it...
Anonymous
If people were downloading copies of my works without paying for them, I'd want to target the people making the copies, not the downloaders.
Cutting off a downloaders internet isn't going to get me paid.
Anonymous
The only idiot here is the one who doesn't understand that the two main issue here are a) the concern that AFACT is taking NOT the makers or users of illegal copies to court - but the provider of the medium used to access the illegal copies and b) their demands erode and undermine fundamental privacy and legal principles. To make it clear to even the most ignorant and self-serving hypocrites: iinet did not MAKE the illegal copies, iinet does not endorse illegal downloads, iinet does not unreasonably hinder the pursuit of those actually breaking the law. What iinet is doing is placing the privacy and fundamental rights of ALL those using its services and infrastructure ahead of the pursuit of ALLEGED copyright infringements harming the profit of the entertainment industry.
GET REAL!
These companies are not attempting to enforce their rights under the law, they are trying to blackmail an ISP to enforce the law for them! The most scary part here is that the level of action AFACT is demanding from iinet is only comparable to those powers and levels of intrusion seen in anti-terror law and activities.
Verification Refused
Why all the effort to strangle the Internet in Australia ? The churches and government bureaucrats expect to censor what they dont like, the big "consumer entertainment" corporations expect to be able to disconnect anyone they nominate, a comment on a blog such as 'a lot of Aussies are fat, beer drinking, pie eaters' may be a racial vilification crime (but only enforced if another ethnic group is named).
Perhaps Americans are more prepared to stand up for their individual rights, and Europeans have a more codified legal structure less easily manipulated by the big corporations.
Perhaps Australia is top of the list where Big Media sponsors their favourite pollies and controls the government, and so is the best target to maintain pre-Internet "business as usual".
Hellfire
John Roket, you are missing the point. I do not support the people who are downloading copyrighted material but if you have a copyright it is your responsibility to enforce it. AFACT is not prosecuting those who are downloadind and or copying their members work but seeks to make ISP,s who merely supply an internet service to do their police work for them. You do not sue the Department of transport if someone runs into your car because they provide the road the offender drove on. It is the same principle here. Let INET proscecute the people it claims are copying their protected works. Then the ISP can disconnect their service based on a conviction and not just an allegation which could result in legal action against them for denial of service. WE ARE NOT THE IDIOTS HERE... YOU ARE
Matthew
After reading all the posts and reflecting on my own activities while using the internet I can conclude that I am in some people's mind a criminal. If this is true then I can also claim to be amongst many friends who also are criminals using the internet. Politicians proven to lie, cheat, steal, mislead, just check out question time in parliament via hansard on the internet. Media company executives who have been charged with murder, drug distribution, money laundering, tax evasion. Musicians and Actors, who have been charged with murder, blackmail, drug taking, tax evasion, sex crimes. As you can see I am a criminal amongst friends indeed. If these companies are successful in stopping piracy over the internet then we will all just revert back to buying one cd/dvd post it to a friend, copy it and post it on to the next person via AustPost and we'll all save a fortune. Better yet why not wake up smell the roses and find a solution. Each ISP subscriber pays a fee say $10 per month and can access any movie, song etc any time. Problem solved $2.50 each to ISP, Media company, artist and government.
Hellfire
Anti Pirate YOU are another IDIOT who can not differentiate between an allegation and a fact. ISP's are NOT responsible to enforce YOUR copyright. YOU are. ISP's will dissconnect anyone once you have taken them to court and prooven your allegation but can not dissconnect just on your allegation alone. WAKE UP TO YOURSELF
Iz!
@ Anti Pirate
Your stupid
@ Anti Pirate
Your stupid words of wisdom clearly demo. why you cant make (good) movies?
Now stop blaming on (so called) piracy.
Anonymous
So you do have a vested interest!
Don't want to spoil your fun in here but is there actually an Australian movie/show worth the effort to copy? I don't think so. Most if not all Australian shows/movies are shown on free to air TV with minimum delay. Why bother?
As a note "piracy" = murder/robbery on high seas! Call it what it is, a copyright infringement.
Anonymous
I am a "pirate".
I sung Happy
I am a "pirate".
I sung Happy Birthday to people in public places.
I hummed and sung tunes off the radio while walking to work.
I sing in the shower
I copied clips of songs to my phone to use as a ringtone.
I have written out recipies from friends cookbooks.
I copied songs onto tapes from friends when I was in high school
I lend out my books
I sang a great many songs when camping as a child
I downloaded this webpage and thousands of others without getting permission to do so.
Three strikes and my internet cut off?
Three strikes and my books burnt?
Three strikes and my hands cut off?
Three strikes and my tongue cut out?
I am a criminal according to AFACT
Anonymous
If you cant make a saleable film maybe think of a career change!!
Anonymouse
Seems to be a lot of folks here in panic fear that they will not be able to download films and music for free soon....
It's like threatening to take the free all-day sucker away from the screaming babies... lol
I love this summary:
"It's a fundamentally different proposition, as the information transmitted is not criminal in nature, but simply an illegal copy of someone elses intellectual property."
That makes the download stolen goods by common law, which makes the ISP responsible to discintinue service ONCE they are informed of the illegal activity...
It's not criminal, it's only illegal... lol
People, some of you are playing right into AFACTS hands here, all this hate mail justifies their position. You are helping no one except the studios.
Drop trying to trivialise the illegal downloads, that only helps AFACT win the case.... *sigh*
DumbLivestock
If an ISP were obliged to disconnect all Internet services on suspicion and complaint of copyright infringement, how is it possible that the same law would not apply to DVDs or paper sent via Australia Post, and oblige them to terminate mail delivery ?
Why is Australia Post authorising such activity by accepting mail and taking paymennt without checking the contents for copyright infringement ?
The government and businesses assume people are notified of bills, taxes, changes of contract etc by mail, and increasingly by email. How can this be legal, if the delivery service can be cancelled due to a 12yr old clicking on a few buttons on the home PC ?
Can I pay back the creepy boss I work for, by setting up that the entire business is disconnected from the Internet by downloading something at work ?
DumberLivestock
If I have evidence that some of my software source code intellectual property has been emailed in an attachment without my permission, and has !P!I!R!A!T!E!D! my Intillecherall Property, what procedure do I follow to have them disconnected into void ?
Anonymous
You do exactly what AFACT is avoiding: you talk to the police
AnonymouSteve
The way I see it is,
We pay
The way I see it is,
We pay phenominal fees on setup / per month / 12 - 24 months / modems , etc .. the internet is supposed to be FREE ,
if you make music , dvds cinema content more financially accessable , meaning lower ticket /hire prices , Shorter lead times ; with the invention of the great internet ; the world becomes a very small place .... get with the program Afact step into the 22nd century , so what if your media magnates and actors dont get their new double kingsized bed with 100 inch plasma installed at the foot ; they will get it in a month or so , even still do like the rest of us and save ....Then you wont get such an influx of piracy , There is a great Monopoly/Conspiracy in this Country , but yet your lawyers are focusing on the Company thats trying to do the right thing by their citizens . Now this is my view and i dont represent anybody else or any company of sorts but Afact needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out how everyone can benefit .
Sorry for the rant !
the igloo
the www has now become a public place, and just like two people standing in the street talking to each other people on the web can share information.
it CAN NOT be stopped, unless you shut down the entire web.....
Anonymous
It's just like anything else which is made illegal that there is high demand for. It will get driven underground and people will find more and more clever ways to be elusive and get the content that they want. You can't stop it. Rather than pushing against what the world clearly wants, why not go with the flow? Make it cheap and easy to download music and movies from the web. I know people who would download all of their music illegally, but now purchase from iTunes online or directly from their iPhone because it's just so easy and cheap. Apple's got the right idea, if AFACT are so concerned about loss of profit, maybe they should take a look around at what works, rather than wasting all of their profits on long legal battles.
Addinall
"ISP's aiding pirates to make money for themselves - that's what this is about."
ISPs provide a service. A sevice for dollar. Apart from a few rinky-dink add-ons like free to air sandboxes and exclusive content, mostly an ISP's product is at the packet level, not at level 7 of the OSI stack. It is impossible to monitor packets and determine of the payload is illegal or not. Well, not quite true, I could do it if you don't mind your net connection being SLIGHTLY faster that a shore to sub ELF network.
"The majority of these posts are clearly from people who want to justify their illegal use of pirated material."
Seems to me the majority of the people writing these posts have a clue. Unlike you.
"What the movie companies want is simple: IF AN ISP IS NOTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE A CUSTOMER WHO IS SHARING ILLEGAL MATERIAL VIA BIT-TORRENT ETC THE ISP SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CLOSE THAT PERSONS ACCOUNT."
Si if I were to phone up one of the 300+ help desk people Mr. Mallone employs in Perth, and accuse you of doing SOMETHING illegal, you would be happy to have your entire network traffic stopped until you could somehow prove your innocence? Is that what you deem as a happy model structure?
"Arguments against this position are nonsense. A good example of this nonsense is the comment by "Lightning"- "Should a power company be charged because somebody uses the power provided to run a hydroponics system to illegally produce cannabis? "
If the ELECTRICITY PROVIDER IS NOTIFIED THAT AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, THEN THE SHOULD CUT THE ELECTRICITY. If they don't then they are "aiding and abetting", which is what this is all about."
But they don't, do they?
"ISPs around the world are aiding and abetting the use of pirated material. If they are advised of who this is, then they should respond. It's that simple."
You're an idiot.
"Multi-millionaire IINET CEO Michael Malone should be ashamed of himself. The only reason he's fighting the case is because he wants to take money from every single person possible, even if they are distributing illegal material. As usual, it's all about $$$."
Multi-millionarre iiNet MM has no reason to be ashamed of himself. He is one of the few honest businessmen I have had the pleasure of working with over the last three decades in IT. iiNet DOES NOT distribute illegal material. They transport IP packets of information from one address to another address. Along the way, to achieve that, Telstra and OPTUS provide the Layer 1 and sometimes Layer two technology, the power companies that feed the power to iiNet, Telstra, OPTUS and to the end user are also compacent in this transaction.
"Please note -- I do not work for any of the film Studios or their legal advisors."
You jest! With a cutting intellect like the one on display!
"I work as an Australian film producer who wants to make films, but can't because piracy is destroying our only source of income which in turn means we can't finance our projects."
Are you trying to tell me that an Australian producer has produced something worth pirating! That is science fiction.
Mark Addinall.
Anonymous
why is this only for iinet ?
This would also apply for all ISP's.
The way I see it, people who downlaod illigially should have their account terminated.
Every ISP terms and conditions says this about doing anything "illigal on or networks, criminal acts etc"... yet ISP's allow it to happen..
If ISP stuck to what their own terms said, there wouldn't be a need for anything else..
The law is different in all countries, and here in Australia is definiatly is illigal, but you could say about recording tv broadcasts, yet everyone does it.
Post new comment