Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: BitTorrent Piracy Claims “Artificially Inflated”

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? @ blog.idtorrent.org

AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? @ blog.idtorrent.org — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:59:02 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking : Porn Newz - Adult Industry News, Events & Articles

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:27:13 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | We R Pirates — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:58:42 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking - P2P Talk? — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:45:10 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret @ blog.idtorrent.org

AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret @ blog.idtorrent.org — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:58:41 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? | InstantIdiocy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:46:26 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? - P2P Talk? — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:41:08 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | InstantIdiocy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:44:00 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough : Porn Newz - Adult Industry News, Events & Articles

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:31:41 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough – FUCK THE RIAA

AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough – FUCK THE RIAA — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:29:17 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | We R Pirates — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:59:12 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret – FUCK THE RIAA

AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret – FUCK THE RIAA — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:27:56 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” | InstantIdiocy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:45:13 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two and day [...]

By: Ninja

Ninja — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:14:36 +0000

“…it said showed internal emails between iiNet employees…”

That’s a crime here. I mean, having such communications without the parts consent and without judicial support to monitor such communication. I wonder if it is a crime in Australia?

And yeah, iiNet can’t see what’s being transferred because the data moves in packs. MAFIAA and merry friends seem to have trouble understanding this…

FAIL lol.

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” - P2P Talk? — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:39:12 +0000

[...] – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two and day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent | InstantIdiocy — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:14:47 +0000

[...] AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent Easy AdSense by Unreal It’s day three in the landmark case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one and day two). [...]

By: liquidmonkey

liquidmonkey — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:13:43 +0000

@30

so if ISP’s know whats happening on their network then why is child porn still a problem? by your reasoning ISP’s think its ok to allow child porn on the internet.

that is surely not the case!
there is not a single ISP on earth that can sift through the petabytes of data and decide what to let through and what to not.

u surely are living on another planet.

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent | We R Pirates — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:59:15 +0000

[...] It’s day three in the landmark case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one and day two). [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:09:43 +0000

@30 Oct 07, 2009 at 21:29 by .neo.styles|nvDX:

I dear you go through the logs of your computer right now and identify every single page you visit LoL

You obviously never worked as an IT manager on any gigabyte log file.

Besides why the ISP have to have any responsability for the problems of others I doubt the RIAA care about the problems their music is causing to the ISP that oversubscribe to make a buck and don’t like P2P because it make them look bad because of the over over over subscription scheme from cable it turns their service into s***.

I think the ISP should sue the RIAA and MPAA and the software alliance for not being able to stop piracy and causing financial damage to the networks that are forced to upgrade their hardware to keep pace.

Or the public should sue the RIAA and MPAA because they are the root of piracy that is turning our children into criminals. If there was no music there would not be crimes, it works to outlaw drugs so it should work to outlaw the music industry anyone creating music and distributing it should be held responsible for the children they subvert.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:11:36 +0000

So they falsified the numbers to make it look like p2p was more of a problem than it really is. I hope that backfires

And yeah how did they get the emails?
Don’t think they just asked for them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:34:21 +0000

Justice is blind…oh! well so am I when I pirate stuff LoL

Sorry I’m trying new jokes.

By: outlaw

outlaw — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:46:32 +0000

liquidmonkey @28
Yes contact
Claims R Us case is as sound as the AFACTs one. If no cars sold no drunk drivers!!!

By: outlaw

outlaw — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:36:33 +0000

Anonymous 26
Commit perjure is what Lord Jeffrey Archer did in his libel case. The offence of perverting the course of justice came later.but you are right he served time for perverting the course of justice. Butyou cant have the second without the first

By: .neo.styles|nvDX

.neo.styles|nvDX — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:29:59 +0000

Uhm, no because ISPs have control over what their custemors do, and thus can privent misues of their services.

This attitude just goes to show that ISPs have become desensitized by piracy as well. They knew what pages their customers were visiting (there for what torrents they were downloading) and even if they only knew that they were using bittorrent. Given the popularity of bittorrent as an illegal tool, they should have looked into each case, not simply looked away and hoped for the best.

By: liquidmonkey

liquidmonkey — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:33:18 +0000

is this not the same as holding ford accountable for drunk drivers???

stupid skippys :(

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:37:13 +0000

Let’s eradicate AFACT!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:14:56 +0000

@25 Oct 07, 2009 at 16:38 by outlaw:

Perverting the course of justice is what you meant to say when mentioning Jeffrey Archer.

Fabrication of evidence could be seen as a perversion of the course of justice thus carrying a max sentence of life. But I doubt the aussie kangaroos will incarcerate those real criminals like that LoL

By: outlaw

outlaw — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:38:17 +0000

Anonymous @23
If they can’t count and it’s in the Court in documentation its 2 to 10 for committing perjure. Cannot make that sort of error in Court documents. Case thrown out and give them 2 to 10 as that sort of documentation would have been in the form of affidavits sworn to be the truth no errors of fact allowed. Give them 2 to 10 that is the AFACT

By: outlaw

outlaw — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:11:53 +0000

The legal argument is no case to answer ………The rest is jest the AFACT and others being lenient with the truth in, legal terms committing perjure give them 2 to 10 a Jeffrey Archer .AS they are already in Australia so us brits can not send them out there. Ps we do not want them back.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:10:29 +0000

@21 Oct 07, 2009 at 15:38 by GG:

Would we as judges take notice of anything that has more then 1% chance of being wrong into account?

If AFACT can’t even count with accuracy what make them think that the traffic they observed was in fact illegal? How would they know that. The music could have been flagged as illegal but do they know that for sure?

How do they differentiate a legal download from an illegal one if they can’t even get the counting right, thus putting serious doubt into their abilities to discriminate between legal and illegal traffic.

I do think that can go a long way.

By: Kickass_Sid

Kickass_Sid — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:46:17 +0000

I'm also wondering about emails. But still cheers and support from http://www.kickasstorrents.com

By: GG

GG — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:38:45 +0000

@ 17 and 18, thanks for the feed back guys but this is a legal argument not a tech one and by moving away from that it may confuse the outcome, i appreciate that they may be intertwined to an extent but imo the simpler this case is made the better for the defense

By: outlaw

outlaw — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:26:54 +0000

AFACT’s Barrister, Tony Bannon . But what Tony Bannon will not tell the Court that he goes into Court and knows full well his clients are at least lenient with the truth, no that’s not what they are its Liars. LIARS that’s the word I wanted. And it’s his job to be as lenient with the truth, as he can.
Best of luck iiNet.

By: PirLog.com

PirLog.com — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:06:33 +0000

Best of luck iiNet.

http://pirlog.com

By: M-RES

M-RES — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:36:35 +0000

@16 I think it’s to undermine the credibility of the prosecution by demonstrating that they have no real understanding of the technology they’re attacking and/or have a tendency to lie under oath.

By: Oz

Oz — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:36:01 +0000

@16 – showing that they’re using flawed processes to gather evidence casts doubt over their whole case.

Thanks TF, keep us updated with this as it happens.

By: GG

GG — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:25:13 +0000

why the hell would iiNets lawyers even bother arguing about “94,942 infringements”? to me that lends some credence to AFACTs position – ignore it and concentrate on the main issue of legality on responsibility of the ISP

By: Davo

Davo — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:20:50 +0000

One of the members of AFACT is Channel 7 – a boring channel for working families working families Australian working families – where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd launched his career. Rudd was a nobody until he did a breakfast TV stint on Channel 7. They still have him on and last year did a TV special about him. Blatant kiss ass, and Rudd is returning the favour. Communication Minister Conroy has applauded the law suit and he said Rudd’s firewall will block peer2peer – though I reckon they’d get kicked out of office first!

Sucks our taxes pay the salaries of pukes like these guys.

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:05:11 +0000

no further mention, here at least, where ‘the judge indicated he would be keen to see a live BitTorrent demonstration, rather than just a recorded demo’. has this taken place or is it to be totally left, in case it shows how flawed the AFACT information is? what about the names of the other ISPs that the judge wanted? as usual, anything that disputes the industries arguments will be ignored and anything that proves their information to be nothing but lies, bullshit and drastic over exageration will be disallowed!

By: $$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$ — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:22:32 +0000

God dammed greed. You all know the outcome of this case was decided well before the trial. These filthy rich media companies just pay their way through everything. This shit has already happened in US and Sweden, it’s only a matter of time before it happens in AU. Get a VPN service before these companies bend you over with a lawsuit that’s worth more than we’ll ever see in our lifetimes. Remember encourage artists to be creative and boycott greedy labels

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:18:44 +0000

@12

Such is the legal process.
http://www.iredellglass.com

By: Prometheus

Prometheus — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:33:55 +0000

@9
If iiNet itself provided such documentation to AFACT they are stupid :)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:16:36 +0000

@7
Its being conducted in Sydney.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:16:10 +0000

#7
Sydney

By: The Tater

The Tater — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:00:24 +0000

@4/5
More than likely they obtained them during the discovery process, in which either side can request evidence.

By: josh

josh — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:54:18 +0000

It pisses me off how they think they are above and beyond the law. How did AFACT obtain these internal emails and how did they get their hands on their training materials? Sounds fishy.

By: woot!

woot! — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:50:33 +0000

What city is the trial being conducted? I’d love to have a look if it were my city.

P.s. F you AFACt – stop trying to get into my computer.

By: tertle

tertle — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:44:32 +0000

They are big enough that they matter (aus third largest ISP) but small enough that they think they’ll have an easier time in court with them.

By: Prometheus

Prometheus — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:41:50 +0000

AFACT presented the court with documents which it said showed internal emails between iiNet employees (including CEO Michael Malone) — I’m curious *how* AFACT obtained those *internal* emails? And if the approach they used was legal?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:41:14 +0000