Top posts on iiNet vs AFACT case: Part II

As the case unfolds, more people weigh into the debate, and here are a few we thought were worth reading

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

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)Federal Court of AustraliaiiNet

More about ACTetworkIinetLinuxTelstra Corporation

Show Comments

Market Place