The delivery of a verdict in the ongoing saga of iiNet vs AFACT has sparked an influx of comments on articles and forums across the web. Here we take a look at some of the top posts.
Dear AFACT Members, Australian law rightly deflected your specious attempt to shift Your Problem to a third-party. Rather than proceed along these knuckle-dragging tactics of lawsuits against an organisation (or individual consumers), why not recognise that you've squandered a decade of opportunity and goodwill, and GENUINELY EMBRACE digital distribution, full throttle, starting in 2010?Your attempts to do so thus far have been nothing short of luke-warm, self-conflicted, and inconsistent. I frankly don't understand why your own shareholders don't toss the lot of you out with last decade's garbage. Stop looking to law to protect you from not having DONE YOUR JOBS for the last 10 years.
Well done AFACT. You have done an unprecedented job of crippling your short-term chances to win over the hearts and minds of Australian Internet Users and convert them into a viable market. Would that you had spent the money wasted on senseless court action to come up instead with a winning strategy to distribute your wares on-line at reasonable prices. Instead, you yourselves sold out those very 50,000 Australians you so solicitously wail about. You chose to engage in a high-risk, high stakes gamble and you lost. You should hire a new Risk Strategy Manager. Had you spent the cash more wisely, imagine the job prospects and job security you could have provided those 50,000 Australians in the industry. Yet you did spend, and seem destined to continue to spend unproductive cash in punitive temper tantrums against your own customers. Maybe you also need a Marketing Manager thrown in to boot. I’m sure that with the equivalent amount you could have hired even Steve Jobs for a week. You would have had better bang for your buck, and a longer tail on your returns. Your 50,000 grateful Australians salute you!
The fundamental right of every citizen in a democracy should be (and usually is) the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof should rest on the accuser. iiNet has a moral (and legal) obligation to take action only against copyright infringers, not alleged infringers. FACT wanted -- no DEMANDED -- that iiNet take action against ALLEGED infringers. Allegations of illegal activity can only be proved in a properly constituted court of law. iiNet then MUST take appropriate action against CONVICTED (proved) infringers. This can include canceling a customers connection, or issuing notices to first time offenders. I am glad that the "principle" of innocent until proven guilty is alive and well in our legal system, and that not even a group of multi billion dollar giants can change it. Just be careful, the current government can (and I think will) change this in AFACT's favour soon enough - pity - and shame on you Senator Conroy if it does.
It is not the ISP's responsibility to filter the internet... or even at all. This was a seriously senseless and dumb case. It's like suing American Airlines because the terrorists used their planes or Toyota because the bank robber used their car as a getaway vehicle. Try settling the issue with actual P2P sharing companies.
I know this isn’t the exactly the same but there is a responsibility from the provider of the product or service. Also, P2P companies don't exist any more. Kazaa was the last of these useless apps. Now there are torrents hosted by trackers and there are thousands of them. The bigger problem is that they don't host the illegal material. So who is responsible? The person downloading it. Only problem is organisations like the AFACT wouldn't earn any money by suing the individual. I feel that the media industrial needs to embrace the technology. We are talking about no hosting costs to distribute massive amounts of data all around the world. Create a easy and cheap option that allows for people to watch "that new episode" and I'm sure that all this activity would reduce.
This is a good day for civil rights and freedom of the Internet. How refreshing to see a courageous and independent judgment by Cowdroy against the might of Hollywood giants. While I understand the film and music industry's torment, I have no sympathy for their tactics and for holding a small ISP to ransom in an uneven legal battle. Perhaps this can serve as yet another wake up call to those (including Conroy and the Rudd government) that still dream of controlling the Internet and wish to curb its potential as the most effective tool to enforce civil liberties and protect democracy in 21st century.