Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking @ blog.idtorrent.org

AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking @ blog.idtorrent.org — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:59:18 +0000

[...] 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: Gadget Mania Gadgets and Gadget News » Blog Archive » AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 %u2013 Studios Promoted BitTorrent

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:13:47 +0000

[...] News link: here [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | InstantIdiocy — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:47:52 +0000

[...] 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 11:38:51 +0000

[...] 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 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? | InstantIdiocy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:45:23 +0000

[...] 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? : Porn Newz - Adult Industry News, Events & Articles

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:29:01 +0000

[...] 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 10:41:23 +0000

[...] 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 21:44:16 +0000

[...] 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 17:31:56 +0000

[...] 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 09:59:33 +0000

[...] 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 - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough - P2P Talk? — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:23:49 +0000

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

By: jon

jon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:04:54 +0000

like 2 sea them go after telstra and optus with this rubbish court case they know they cant they have as much money as them lol. might have more of a chance when telstra gets broken up i suppose

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret - P2P Talk? — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:03:44 +0000

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

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret | We R Pirates — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:59:04 +0000

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

By: paula

paula — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:52:42 +0000

You deserve a matchmaker to find love. At ___http://www.UniformedCupid.com__ your dedicated matchmaking online dating site for great dating services — we believe that if you put yourself out there,
you’ll meet singles you’re looking for — single men, single women, local singles, even a love match.
By taking a personal approach to personal ads, you can find a date and find singles for Military dating, Jewish dating, black dating, gay dating, or senior dating. With our matchmaking capabilities, you can find that unique person who gets what you’re all about, quirks and all.
That person who says what you were about to say, who isn’t mortified when you make a social blunder, whose scent you’d liketo bottle, and whose smile you’d like to wake up to every day. That’s why we give you an audience filled with local singles, the tools to find and meet single women and single men,
and lots of features that help you find your love match. With Personals as your matchmaker, you can find the kind of first date that lead to second dates and beyond.
You still might meet the love of your life at a coffeehouse or gas station. But with __http://www.UniformedCupid.com__, instead of sitting around waiting for that to happen, you’ll be getting dates from online dating and having a fabulous time.

By: Someone close

Someone close — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:28:54 +0000

No. This is utter bollocks.

The contracts arose from copyright cases against these so called BitTorrent promoters – they didn’t pin their flags to the BitTorrent masts like this lynch-mob site suggests.

Get it in perspective!

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” – FUCK THE RIAA

AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” – FUCK THE RIAA — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:25:03 +0000

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

By: Ninja

Ninja — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:21:59 +0000

oh damn, when is iiNet comming to my country? I’m gonna be their 1st costumer lmao.

By: Killin Gnatsies » AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant”

Killin Gnatsies » AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:21:12 +0000

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

By: AussieNetUser

AussieNetUser — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:13:40 +0000

I’ve never been prouder to be an iiNet customer, and I’m honored to say that I used to work for them JUST as they were becoming “big”. The culture at iiNet was much more a REAL version of Google’s “Don’t be evil” than Google has ever managed to pull off.

Keep it up Michael Malone! I love your company!

By: Kapcha

Kapcha — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:41:12 +0000

lol ) owned )

By: Joe Baptista

Joe Baptista — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:05:29 +0000

Just making a correction to some of the statements made here about Herman Xennt.

The patent he filed was abandoned. It contained no new process or method that could be patented.

regards
joe baptista

By: Reasoned Mind

Reasoned Mind — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:52:38 +0000

@77 I agree with you. I never said (nor ever believed) P2P was any sort of problem. It’s a brilliant technology with a huge positive potential.

It’s the misuse of that technology I write about here.

And #44 was spoofed. I may not always agree with the majority here, but I post better thought out positions than that. Sorry about the confusion. We can also agree that #44 is an idiot and a buffoon.

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: Day 4 – BitTorrent Deals “Irrelevant” | We R Pirates — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:39:10 +0000

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

By: PrivateTrackersRBadMmmkay

PrivateTrackersRBadMmmkay — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:59:04 +0000

@44 You sir, are an idiot and a buffoon.

Case in point: “filesharing, bittorrenting, peer-to-peer, or piracy is an organised crime.” [SIC]

Sure it is. That’s why Microsoft has called it Peer-To-Peer and it has had support since Windows XP Service Pack 1 via the Advanced Networking Pack for Windows XP.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/F/1/2F1A22FD-E838-4BC6-AC40-FBDBCC3A17A4/ANP_FAQ.htm

From the FAQ:

Q: What is the Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking Infrastructure?

A: Windows Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Networking is a developer platform to create P2P applications for computers running Windows XP. Windows P2P networking allows application developers to utilize powerful personal computers that exist at the edge of the Internet, to create exciting new distributed applications. P2P technology provides an opportunity to make existing applications work together in new and useful ways. For more information see: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p2p.

But we won’t let something so silly as facts get in the way, shall we?

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 10:39:27 +0000

[...] by Reese on Oct.09, 2009, under P2P News (No Ratings Yet) Loading … It’s day four in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two and day three). [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:56:43 +0000

Good on them, im currently with Telstra but considering changing to iiNet due to the strong stand they have taken in this case
I hope iiNet wins and AFACT can go fuck itself

By: Wakka Wakka

Wakka Wakka — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:52:36 +0000

@75
“If they don’t want people using torrents, they shouldn’t associate themselves with torrents. It’s stupid and counterproductive.”

Yeah but they do want people using torrents, if people didn’t they wouldn’t be able to sue anyone now would they?

By: Reasoned *

Reasoned * — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:37:31 +0000

Still wrapping my head around this: Studios paid to be advertised specifically on the BitTorrent website, and to have their content featured as the “Internet’s Richest Media” that BitTorrent provides access to?

Fire the idiots who spent money on losing money.

Nothing tells the user that using BitTorrent to download stuff is possibly illegal in your jurisdiction. Click on slide 1, featuring stuff like “Harry Potter” and “The Simpsons”, type in any of them at the search box and find torrents of them. Wait! You still need the BitTorrent client! Click download, do so, and you’re ready! Nowhere is the user told of the possible legal consequences!

Maybe there aren’t, since the studios are directly endorsing the use of p2p to download their content.

Of course, there are, since they are always suing people for using torrents.

If they don’t want people using torrents, they shouldn’t associate themselves with torrents. It’s stupid and counterproductive.

By: Reasoned Mind

Reasoned Mind — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:07:15 +0000

@#72 no, that’s not Reasoned Mind at #13.

“That will LEARN them…..?”

lol at least the real RM is educated and writes well.

By: benni

benni — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:48:59 +0000

@ ~64 outlaw i wish i read your post b 4 posting i think you’ve put it in perspective ……..

comments PLEASE……..

By: benni

benni — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:39:47 +0000

btw reasoned mind is #13

By: benni

benni — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:38:23 +0000

@ Reasoned Mind >>>>>>> PLEASE define illegal downloader……………………………..fool………..in the words of my good friend MR T …. quit your jibba jabba and get some NUTS omg how can people be so uneducated :( makes me sad for the masses :(

By: Annie Moose

Annie Moose — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:08:16 +0000

Niiice, AFACT. Just keep digging yourself a bigger hole, we don’t mind…

By: Big Jump Down

Big Jump Down — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:09:44 +0000

Nice one.

Go iiNet.

By: SirReal

SirReal — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:47:58 +0000

Good good, a promising update.

By: AFACT

AFACT — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:38:48 +0000

LIES! LIES! THEY ARE ALL LIES!

By: dniM denosaeR

dniM denosaeR — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:34:53 +0000

I just have to get in on this conversation. I spelled Reasoned Mind backwards. Ha!

This article shows more proof the copyright morons are all hypocrites. But, AFACT will probably get away with it, as these corporations always do. :P

By: charlie

charlie — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:46:21 +0000

im with optus sucked in iinet

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 ? Studios Promoted BitTorrent - Gamethreat

AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 ? Studios Promoted BitTorrent - Gamethreat — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:58:01 +0000

[...] promoted their companies on BitTorrent.com, a confusing situation for potential downloaders. AFACT v iiNet: Day 3 – Studios Promoted BitTorrent | TorrentFreak Set a trashcan on fire and keep a bum warm for a night. Set the bum on fire, and keep him [...]

By: outlaw

outlaw — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:41:05 +0000

Reasoned Mind 63
To be of reasoned mind you first must have one. And you are sandwich short of a picnic never mind.

By: Reasoned Mind

Reasoned Mind — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:17:16 +0000

are you guys stupid? why post anonymously, or use a nick that even a 4-year kid would laugh at? we can always go under the name of king Reasoned Mind.

By: Kickass_Sid

Kickass_Sid — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:16:07 +0000

Very nice move! I hope they will wint the case!

By: matt

matt — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:44:14 +0000

lol #4, nice story. Go write a book or something.

By: Reasoned Mind

Reasoned Mind — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:48:08 +0000

Dingo calm down. You are arguing with an impostor troll. It’s not me. I’m at work at the moment. You really can’t tell the difference?

lol
“great”

By: Karai

Karai — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:38:08 +0000

Holy shit, great lawyer!

By: Dingo_RG

Dingo_RG — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:21:02 +0000

45 Reasoned TROLL said:
“now it has been established that iinet is actually ‘organsing’ the crime by selling and promoting packages for copyright infringement.”
……………………….

The only thing that clearly has been established here is that you are an IMBECILE of high degree who lacks of arguments.

Suggesting that an ISP is responsible for the actions of its users is the same as saying that a telephone company is responsible too for the content or information exchanged in the conversations of its users, from any point of view, complete NONSENSE.

Moreover, any ISP and any telephone company are mediums of comunication, and obviously, they charge for that service, independently of the type of information which is exchanged between users. Suggesting that iiNet is responsible for the type of content exchanged between their users is ridiculous, absurd and without any legal basis. This is only another caprice from the obsolete USA record labels.

By: Dingo_RG

Dingo_RG — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:18:35 +0000

18 anonymouse said:
“if iiNet lose, it will affect the other Oz isps.”
……………………….

Which is not true. If iiNet lose (in a hypothetical case), this ONLY means that iiNet could not defend properly, that’s all. There exist very good arguments and actions for nullifying successfully any charges of copyright infringement, and any ISP or person can use it without problems, independently if iiNet wins or not.

By: Idiots?

Idiots? — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:04:16 +0000

@52

Wow, what a victory!

Best leave your step father’s basement now and go to school.

The comment about “arse clowns” by #47 is correct. By copying their names as your own all you do is show a lack of originality to become involved in a proper discussion and therefore divert the discussion towards another issue.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:58:20 +0000

“Reasoned Mind has got his own opinion. Of course it’s pure crap but he knows it too. ”

No but reasoned mind and the other aliases he is using is a pay troll working for a company on the side of the recording industry as a contractor.

We have identified the company and now we are in the process to identifying the client.

Once done we will publish the result.

This seem very interesting!