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

enigmax
October 9, 2009
88
AFACT,
iiNet
Print

Yesterday, lawyers for Aussie ISP iiNet argued in court that the movie studios, represented in the case by AFACT, had a commercial relationship with BitTorrent.com. Now in day four of the trial, the studios have hit back, accusing iiNet of withholding information and focusing on the “legally irrelevant”.

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).

Yesterday the court heard from iiNet barrister Richard Cobden, who described how
several of the plaintiffs and members of the MPAA had previously entered into contracts with BitTorrent Inc, the source of the official BitTorrent software.

BTLogos He said that the logos of these studios appeared on BitTorrent.com (placed directly under the ‘free download’ link for the official BitTorrent client) and also on Mininova.

This lead Cobden to declare that the studios “….have engaged, at least from the logos on BitTorrent Inc, in the promotion of BitTorrent, the vehicle for all infringement in this case.”

Today AFACT barrister Tony Bannon criticized iiNet for these claims, describing them as “an excellent example of iiNet’s intent to focus not on legally relevant and factually indisputable matters but to focus on the legally irrelevant.”

Bannon said that the claims show that iiNet wishes to give the court the impression that his clients encouraged the exact same copyright infringement they now complain about in this case, going on to call the claims “legally irrelevant” and noting that the contacts with BitTorrent.com were terminated last year.

While Bannon insisted the details of those contracts are confidential, he was prepared to reveal that they included terms which required BitTorrent Inc to filter out torrents from their search engine which linked to illicit copies of the studios’ movies. He also said that iiNet knew that the contracts had been terminated but had not relayed that fact to the court, or when it spoke to members of the media.

However, an iiNet spokesperson seemed unrepentant. “The fact is the logos are still on the BitTorrent sites and serves the argument we are making, which is a couple of clicks away from where the logos are, you can download things. Part of the argument we are making in relation to all that is when it comes to what are ‘reasonable steps’ for iiNet to take about illegal downloading when they are not even asking BitTorrent to do the same thing?”

Earlier this week, iiNet had presented information to the court which showed that its competitors – other ISPs operating in a similar manner – also did not give in to AFACT demands that they should disconnect their copyright-infringing customers, backing up claims that iiNet had been singled out by the movie industry.

Tony Bannon criticized iiNet for producing this evidence, describing it as meaningless and “….an attempt to take the case outside of the real issues.”

AFACT boss Neil Gane briefly appeared on the witness stand and was questioned by iiNet barrister Richard Cobden. The exchange ended in a dispute over what confidential material can or cannot be used in the case.

Judge Cowdroy will decide on the issue by next Monday when Neil Gane retakes the stand.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

what

i hope iinet wins.
chris

AFACT need to get a grip – these points are “relevant”
http://www.eZee.se www.eZee.se

Anything that puts AFACT scum in a bad light is “irrelevant”.

Strange how that works.
anon

Australia sucks.

Makes me want to go kangaroo hunting.
anonymouse

any information that may be damaging to AFACT or other related industries in this or any other case is obviously going to be disputed by them. they have the opinion that the only information/evidence that should be considered by a court is what they actually want to be considered. deeming what is or isnt relevant is not for them to decide. both sides of an argument need to be heard, and ALL evidence needs to included, not just what suits them. still waiting to be told here whether the judge took lessons on how bittorrent works and whether he understands it now.
King.Hooper

It’s a shame that cases like this don’t touch on moral issues, we have to wait for all the appeals and take it to the highest courts. Even then we run the risk of running into an archaic judge…
RetroGrade

Fingers crossed for iinet, i wish i could do something to help and hope you guys win this case.
Cookie

Reading carefully recent about trials on TF I get the awful feeling that the trials have very little to do with real technical knowledge (which I feel is a must in technology cases) and without any real discussion about the nature of file-sharing itself.

It seems almost every lawyer (on both sides) in every trial tries to evade to REAL issue here – the future of copyrighted information.

Torrents are great because they implement a very distributed system which is hard to stop. But the real issue here is information-sharing and we do not have to use torrents, we do not even have to use the internet.

Are you kidding me? We used to copy cassettes, photocopy stories and articles and we recorded any show/movie we wanted. We are ALL did some copy infringement in our past and bound to do so in the future. It is time to change the copyright laws. Or at least force the court of law to make some substantial note about this topic.

DAMN AFACT and co’… Ignorant judges…Stupid old intellectual property laws. We all know whats up, lets get dirty.

—
And with all the love to TPB – no, they didn’t made this argument as well – which is pretty sad because they lost anyway, and this was a good time to talk about the change we, as a society, are doling to the way we consume information.
Cookie

I just found that MIT releases all her curses videoed and FREE for the whole world. This is what I am talking about! Free information to everyone. (we are lucky MIT is not a record label)

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
Cookie

her=its (damn translation)
Cookie

Sorry for trolling but just found a lecture worth watching in the MIT site:

Introduction to Copyright Law
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-912January–IAP–2006/CourseHome/index.htm

(my last comment – I promise!)
pink panther

Trying to confuse BitTorrent, Inc. with bittorrent protocol and other clients and trackers is legal sophistry – can’t the defense do anything better than this? I actually have to side with the prosecution that this is irrelevant.
Jess Colin

LOL, the bottom feeding, blood sucking attorneys are at it again I see! Never fails.

Jess
Anonymous

Court proceeding starts: Mafiaa vs Toddler (plus one hysterically pissed off mom.)

Mafiaa — Guilty as charged!

Toddlers mom, still pissed off — What? Are you insane? On what grounds, where’s the proof?

ML — Please could the accused mom be kind enough to put that damn muffler back where it belongs. Christ, what a whiner.

ML — FFS STFU!

ML — Thank you. Look where only here to try and set the prison terms and decide the amount of damages. Proof is legally irrelevant.
Reasoned Mind

i have been a supporter of artists and creators, but a i am also a customer of a local internet service provider that is slightly larger than iinet, and have a multi-year contract with them.

Although the capitalistic nature of free market sometimes allows any corporate entity to pursue profit beyond moral limits, it does not mean that you can organise and promote criminal activities to make a living.

from this point of view, iinet’s arguments of “warner bros. logo on bittorrent.com makes us to pirate their movies” clearly states the nature of business environment iinet itself stands on; 1) they are well aware of criminal materials they’ve been selling to subscribers. 2)and while they are actually encouraging the subscribers to participate in criminal activities, they claim zero responsibility for it.

I, as an average citizen, who went through adequate amount of education in science and technology, were happy to see the progress in technology we’ve achieved. And now i feel cheated behind those progresses there were scums profiteering from the obscurity of latest technologies.
http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com Ben Jones

“from this point of view, iinet’s arguments of “warner bros. logo on bittorrent.com makes us to pirate their movies” clearly states the nature of business environment iinet itself stands on”

That’s not what was said. What was said was along the lines of ‘the presence of the logos can confuse the customer into believing it’s legitimate’

At no point was anyone implied to have MADE, forced, or placed anyone under any other form of duress to infringe copyright. Instead, they are pointing out that members of AFACT have participated in deals in the recent past that may lead to consumer confusion.

“And now i feel cheated behind those progresses there were scums profiteering from the obscurity of latest technologies.”
To the company that is using the previous generation of technology, and has their business based around that, the companies using the newest are profiting from the obscurity of the technology. Do they stay with the safe money and the old tech, or take a punt and risk the easy money for the more lucrative future money. They took the safe route, and now want to hold back those that took the risky route, because the risks have paid out.

I remind you as well that Fox, was founded by William Fox, while he was attempting to pirate movies. All of Hollywood was. That’s how they made their start, but it’s now the worst thing on earth to do!
your name here

Copying is not a crime, Retarded Mind knows this, yet he keeps on trolling anyway…
P2P Worshiper

I hope that the iiNet lawyer have some extra rabbits in his magic hat, that he can present, because of all this statements, presentation and arguments that he had presented for the judge un till now, are so WEAK that it is impossible to believe it.
And I don’t hope that he’s whole defence strategy he got, are only about these stupid logos.
Because there are plenty of cases and ammo’s that he could use against any MAFIIA courts, that have more bite than his weak stories.
John

Because people keep indulging in his games :P

“And now i feel cheated behind those progresses there were scums profiteering from the obscurity of latest technologies.”

Who are we talking about again?
The Pirates using technology to listen to music for free – or the labels/distributors who use technology to copy live music and sell if for an inflated figure?

Your both as bad as each other imho.
The people don’t want to pay a fair price for the music, and the record labels won’t sell it at anything less that 50x more than a fair price.
Kapcha

iiNet must win!
Reasoned Mind

to Ben Jones :

the majority being ignorant of specific details of latest technologies, including the legal aspect of bittorrent and many other methods for piracy, cannot be an excuse.

besides, the fact is that piracy is organised crime, and ISPs are profiteering from organsing crimes. they sell modems, fibers, broadbands, subscriptions, connections or whatever you may call it – and encourage its customers to participate in their organsied crime using their tools. In exchange, ISPs get paid from subscribers. when the society tries to shut it down in civil and polite ways, they blame it on warner bros. logo on bittorrent.com.

This is the ‘nature of business environment’ ISPs are standing on, and with common sense, one making profit from supplying, promoting, and organsing crime, is wrong.

And your arguments regarding “taking a punt and risking the easy money for the more lucrative future money.” is completely irrelevant. May I ask what is the “risk” taken by the companies behind pirates? Artists and creators are not competing against pirates – they produce and distribute something that entertain us, and whether they are using an old-fashioned way or an obscure, latest technology fresh out of the lab does not matter. Pirates just invented brand new ways to steal – and regardless of amount of “risks” pirates took in order to achieve that, pirates will be punished for thefts they’ve done.
Cookie

@15

A note on “latest technologies” – (sorry of being lazy but I’ve “ripped” a part of my answer from yesterday)

Any basic understanding in how computers work makes it obvious that without the ability to “copy” data ANY computer will just not be able to do anything. ANYTHING. Not even show you your iphone/microsoft/nokia/lg/whatever screen on the start-up. Really. Computer most basic action is to copy data from one memory cell to another.

Copying data is embedded in the way we (humans) designed computers. There is no system in the world that will be able to stop us from copying the data which we can access. We must copy it just in order to access it. Reading it might become tough if encrypted, but copying those zeros and ones is basically unavoidable.

This has nothing with “latest” technologies, unless you consider the entire PC concept a “latest” technology. And if you want to go that far – the record labels should never left the vinyl records…

And honestly, “Reasoned” – I must say, as far as the average Joe you say you are, I’m sorry but I do not buy it. You write like a paid troll of the record labels.
Cookie

@21

If I understood you at all, you say selling connection to the internet is facilitating a crime?

You must recheck your beliefs system, latest HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS declare internet access as part of the essential rights for any citizen.

I think you can change your nickname now, Reasoned Mind does not suite you.
knux

lmfao, who didn’t see that witness being an ass to question… oy
Comeoncomcast

Come on iiNet make AFART FAIL like BRIEN LOL
uTorrenter

anybody notice what they were downloading on the presentation on bittorrent’s main page

‘Steal this Film’ ring a bell to anyone?

and also other copyrighted material

again double standards!

FU corporations
knux

@21

First off I will start by asking the question that everyone should be asking you and probably has without answer, what the bloody hell are you doing on this site? Secondly, how is it that you see that ISPs are profiting from pirates? Most are complaining about the traffic causing them to actually pay more for stability on their networks. Thirdly, I found it interesting that out of all of the logos that you could have mentioned, you mention Warner. Are you seriously some Warner AP lobbyist who has nothing better to do than to troll forums?

In conclusion, not everyone that shares files is a pirate, not everyone that uses new and risky technology is a pirate, and we aren’t telling companies to “get behind” piracy. We are telling them to change their business model to embrace this technology instead of trying to ban it.

For instance, the thing that BitTorrent and the studios were trying to do a few years ago would have worker, IF they hadn’t put so much damn DRM on everything or tried to make it a PPV type purchase. THAT is why it didn’t work and THAT is why people decided to pirate instead of buy legit.

And as for the pirates will be punished mwhahahaha… Yea, um, when you become a cop and start capturing pirates, come talk to us then.
James Holdger

It’s like to sell bombs and then to sue who used them to kill people.

And to think the ISP is just an ISP. And they are now asking the ISP to block or deep packet the bittorrent traffic?

To me, this sounds like that movie where the mad scientist infected the humanity with a virus, and then blamed the people for breathing the air and contracting the virus.

Talk about hipocrisy…
knux

@26

Actually most of the stuff on there they held the rights to and ‘Steal This Film’ was promoting itself to be pirated on The Pirate Bay for a long time… For once, they didn’t do anything wrong there.
uTorrenter

@29
fair enough but what about the pictures behind the first presentation.

surely that makes it look like u can download these programmes legally if they have the pictures and the logos of the companys just to the right
Reasoned Mind

“It’s like to sell bombs and then to sue who used them to kill people.”

Exactly. that is why we don’t allow selling dangerous materials in the first place, and have regulations for less-dangerous ones.

As a technophile, i’d like to see those who exploit technology for their greed to be prosecuted. then we can starting building a sustainable environment for artists and creators suffering from piracy.
http://www.eZee.se www.eZee.se

@Ben Jones,
Dont even waste your time with RM,
she just comes up with crap and if you raise any valid points never addresses them but would rather try to steer you into the way the scumbags of the industry think.
Anonymous

RM do you download illegeally?
not Reasoned Mind

Dont bother asking Reasoned Mind questions.

1. He never responds to valid arguments because he either cant answer them or thinks he is above you since you don’t speak in his manner.

2. He technically acts like everyone else, he makes claims and puts them across as facts with no references, evidence or even theory. He loves to just say ‘this is going to happen..’ with nothing to back it up.

3. He never has anything to say when TF uncovers horrible truths about the industry, or he pathetically tries to justify it with bogus points that don’t really have anything to do with the subject.. but seems to convince himself that it does.

4. He loves to point out the fact that ‘pirates’ are but a small minority of the population yet he still thinks that his comments are significant. If file sharing was such a small thing.. then why would he be here.

5. He contradicts himself quiet often in the long run and fails to acknowledge it when someone points it out.

6. His comments have no real point or meaning when you get down to it.. he loves to make his little side point and run away, then act like he is better then everyone else.

Do yourself a favor and don’t engage him even though you think you can have an intelligent argument. Your wasting your time.
djnforce9

@31 Reasoned Mind:
Your response was completely beside the point. Here’s a better example. If someone buys a car (assuming all regulations were followed including checking for valid drivers license, etc) and then later on speeds like a maniac and severely injures someone in a collision. That someone (or their family) would NOT be able to sue to the car company to which the driver had purchased his vehicle. They could instead sue the individual that caused the problem.

This is what AFACT is doing though only the speeding “driver” in this case is the file sharer and the “Car Company” is the ISP. Car companies cannot stop people from speeding any more than ISPs can halt filesharing. Any feeble attempt would severly lower the quality of the product.

Also about your earlier comment, let us take a look at the definition of Organized Crime:
“Organized crime or criminal organizations comprise groups or operations run by criminals, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit”.

FILE SHARERS do NOT make any profit whatsoever from sharing files nor are they part of any specific “group” or “operation” (and don’t say SCENE groups because those members also don’t profit and they HATE P2P). Therefore, ISPs do NOT profit from “organized crime” because it doesn’t even exist in this case.

I’d say the music industry itself is more closely related to organized crime. You want proof? Here you go (and how convenient for you to just skip these topics):
http://torrentfreak.com/anti-pirates-try-to-nail-the-pirate-bay-with-faked-evidence-091008/
http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-drama-prevents-artist-from-sharing-music-on-myspace-091007/
djnforce9

@34: Yes I’ve seen this posted before. If it’s true, then he probably will ignore my above response.

#1: It’s fine. It’s nothing more than a debate (even if he does refuse to budge from his position, there is still a sense of satisfaction shooting down his arguments again and again).

#5: may not be true though because there are plenty of “fake” reasoned minds making comments (a negative side effect of not having explicit accounts required to post comments). I think the REAL Reasoned Mind is pretty consistent with his belief that file sharers are criminals that severely harm the entertainment industry and cost other people their rights (none of which is true).
Reasoned Mind

@35 djforce9
your naive attempt of bringing car companies to generalize ISPs is plain wrong. also, we never let car companies to do whatever they want with cars – they were responsible for their products since the automobile industry emerged. what do you think about the laws, regulations, and limits we imposed on cars?

whatever you may believe, stealing materials without payment comes to pirates as a monetary profit. and even if all these pirates are innocent (as you guessed), the ISPs are still organised criminals – they promote copyright infingement, and they do have a plenty of monetary profit which comes in forms of subscription fees.
Sendaii

piracy is organised crime

I don’t believe that this is the real Reasoned Mind. That’s too ridiculous, even for him. However, if it is, I suggest that he does some research on what organised crime is. From the Wikipedia article:

Organized crime or criminal organizations can be defined as. of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit.

Can you show us what profit we are making by pirating some music? Because if we are, I want some.
James Holdger

Reasoned Mind, I was referring to the fact that also who sell cars should not sue people who caused an accident, or who sell knifes should not sue who cut himself a finger.

They were partners of the team who invented Bittorrent. And now they sue who’s allowing it, being it for legal or illegal filesharing. Filesharing is also used to share the most important Linux distributions, and countless other thing under non-copiryght licence.

You see, they are just a little bit… hypocrites.
Anonymous

All these entertainment parasites and their lawyers should be eradicated once and for all for the sack of humanity.
Anonymous

I finally found the Reasoned Mind company and I am applying!

Via http://www.freelancehomewriters.com

Is it how you find them too Reasoned Mind?
James Holdger

lol, now piracy is organized crime! Then I suppose so is the REAL MAFIAA! They are doing crimes and they are organized. They provide false documentation to the courts and that’s a crime, a real one.

And for your information, downloading is not even a crime in many countries, upload is.

Alright, almost all the torrent clients do act both as downloaders and uploaders, but from here to say that ALL the clients are uploading a WHOLE torrent content, there’s a big difference.
Sendaii

the ISPs are still organised criminals – they promote copyright infingement

No. The ISPs are selling a service that may or may not be used to infringe on your precious copyright laws. That does not make them criminals. If a shop sells a man a knife who then murders someone with it, that does not make the shopkeeper who sold the guy the knife a criminal.

In case you haven’t noticed, there are plenty of legal uses for the internet.
Anonymous

My stuff is on Bittorrent and in the TBP database for distribution.

I put in there.

So if AFACT or Brein or IFPI manage to block any of these I am going to shop some heads.

I am serious!
James Holdger

Also ReasonedMind, it’s the basics which are spoiled.

THe copyright law was introducted so that people would have remained ignorant, centuries ago. Who governed thought that ignorant people were easier to lead than the smarter people.

And so it remains today. Ignorant people are still easier to lead for a country rather than intelligent people who may want to debate, but the fee over the knowledge remained, and it’s called copyright. Now it applies to music and movies, as well, back then there weren’t any of this stuff.

However, the reason why the copyright law came in effect, was to control people, and not to enrich some major entertainment industry for no reason at all.
michael8124

I don’t think that is the real Reasoned Mind. He seems to be missing capital letters on the first word of his sentences. The real Reasoned Mind knows better than that. Get a life and don’t be a copycat.

“He said that the logos of these studios appeared on BitTorrent.com (placed directly under the ‘free download’ link for the official BitTorrent client) and also on Mininova.”

I have to wonder what kind of spyware the bittorrent client had on the site(s) with their logos. My guess is the whole purpose of them being in cahoots with bittorent was to spy on people. Just my opinion.
Like Reasoned Mind

“If a shop sells a man a knife who then murders someone with it, that does not make the shopkeeper who sold the guy the knife a criminal.”

Trying to equate knife with music is grossly incorrect and stupid.

Business who sell knifes are not allowed to go in the street and murder people with their marchandises.

You see? it is easy and it pay good! $50 an hour for that. Ya!

I will now be competing with Reasoned Mind.

I will love my new job!
Reasoned Mind

@38, Thank you Sendaii, for noticing none of the above RM postings are mine.

This name is being spoofed so routinely here now it’s becoming a general front for anyone who doesn’t want to be accountable to things they say. Fair enough, I suppose, but clean up your act for crying out loud.

Spelling counts. So does punctuation and capitalization. It’s one thing to co-opt my persona but it’s quite another to represent me as if I have no education.
Like Reasoned Mind

“Spelling counts. So does punctuation and capitalization”

Yes, definitely.

If I misspell I lose money so believe me I am careful with my spelling!
Reasoned Mind

@38, con’t, by the way Sendaii, to answer your question:

“Can you show us what profit we are making by pirating some music? Because if we are, I want some.”

Prior to technology furnishing a way to take billions of dollars worth of entertainment off the internet without paying for it, there was a quid pro quo between the merchandise taken and the price the seller requests. In those days you could pay it and take the product or pass and save the money.

Today pirates take the merchandise unlawfully saving the money. Here in the USA, that’s the financial gain, the entire retail value of whatever you’ve taken but have not paid for. Because money is saved with each act of infringement, each act is properly defined as “commercial.”

By contrast, were the product a loss leader given away for free by the creator but still under copyright and thus, distribution, an act of piracy there would still be an unlawful infringement but because no money was saved (it was free in the first place) it’s not a commercial piracy. Got it?

But don’t blame me for this interpretation. Tell it to the 9th Circuit Court of the United States, in the NAPSTER ruling, 2001.

“To save the expense” Illegal file bartering has been held to be a commercial use, cutting off the defense of fair use in the U.S.: “…[C]ommercial use is demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauhorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.” A&M Records, Inc. et al v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), at 1014.
Reasoned Mind

@ 50 now THAT’s the real Reasoned Mind.

(as Elvis)
“Thank yuh, thank yuh verra much.”
Like Reasoned Mind

“Filesharing is also used to share the most important Linux distributions, and countless other thing under non-copiryght licence.”

Yes but still it does not authorize them to let people distribute copyrighted content. The ISPs have a responsibility in there.
Like Reasoned Mind

LOL!
James Holdger

@ Like Reasoned Mind

… then I would add that I don’t think they do because who sell knives are not responsible for the good they sell, and maybe you would continue and tell me that guns and cars do have regulations, and so on…

It’s a real neverending story with RM…
Like Reasoned Mind

“furnishing a way to take billions of dollars worth of entertainment off the internet without paying for it.”

Yes and not only that but if somemone put it’s music on p2p for free it causes people to listen to the free music instead of the 4 major companies of musics industrial industry.

This produce a lost for these poor companies their poor artists and poor employees and poor CEO and poor VP and poor director, since now people are even less likely to buy their music and particularly since the free music is as good and often even better. So this is like stealing.

Putting free music on internet constitute unfair competition and the better the free music the most unfair it is.

If you put your free music on internet you are a thief and a criminal because you causes incalculable damages to the industry. RIAA companies employees have kid to feed too you know!
Like Reasoned Mind

“and maybe you would continue and tell me that guns and cars do have regulations, and so on…”

Exactly.

Oops! I should not have say that!
Anonymous

Is just hilarious that people think the road needs to be responsible for the cars that pass through it LoL

Here is the kicker. If an label employee distribute content to others. The label should be held accountable too? After all they didn’t do enough to stop the guy from doing it did they?

If a warner brothers employee used the computer on the CEO room to do illegal activity according to the reasoning warner brothers is responsible and their CEO is a criminal. That is a flawless way of thinking don’t you think guy’s?

If I was a lawyer I would use some example involving judges and the department of justice to drive the point home.

LoL

iiNet will lose these case only if their lawyers drop the ball.
Anonymous

If ISP are found guilty, companies everywhere should be very very scared because this opens the door to liability to everyone who has a internet connection. It makes everyone responsible for what happens in their networks and it will not matter if it is possible or impossible to prevent things.
I would love to see that happen just to see the backlash this is going to have.
djnforce9

@37 Reasoned Mind:

“we never let car companies to do whatever they want with cars – they were responsible for their products since the automobile industry emerged.”

Yes so car manufacturers are responsible if your vehicle has a major defect causing you or others injury (e.g. Ford Pinto). However, the example I gave was of “willful” misuse of the product and how the one who supplies it should NOT be held responsible for the actions of those who use it (unless the product was SOLD illegally which in this case it was not).

“stealing materials without payment..”
I’m sick of repeating myself. You already know very well that file sharing is not stealing in the eyes of the law because if it was, file sharers would be tried under “criminal” law and charged with “theft”, NOT civil law and charged with “copyright infringement”.

Now the ONLY argument that’s in your favour Reasoned Mind are those ISPs that DO advertise “you can download a full movie in X minutes” which some ISPs do to promote their speed of service. However, unless the industry can prove that iiNet made such adverts, the industry can’t use it against them.
Anonymous

Now the ONLY argument that’s in your favour Reasoned Mind are those ISPs that DO advertise “you can download a full movie in X minutes” which some ISPs do to promote their speed of service. However, unless the industry can prove that iiNet made such adverts, the industry can’t use it against them.

Unless they say you can download illegal movies I don’t see how even advertising that you can download a movie in X minutes is relevant to contributory copyright infringement. There is legal movies for free on the internet and legal services.

- Netflix.
- Hulu
- FearNet
- Fan Movies
- Jamendo
- Miro

Just to name a few.
U U U U

Worth a Read;

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fighting-for-the-right-to-download-20091009-gpnl.html
Old Timer

@50 Reasoned mind:
“By contrast, were the product a loss leader given away for free by the creator but still under copyright and thus, distribution, an act of piracy there would still be an unlawful infringement but because no money was saved (it was free in the first place) it’s not a commercial piracy. Got it? ”

So since TV shows, movies, etc are released free on web-sites by the copyright holders after they have aired or are no longer money makers, then downloading those are allowed?

I am leaving music out of the debate because the music model is outdated and am only looking to future distribution models for TV, movies, books, etc and how that is going to be impacted byt the changes to the copyright laws in a lot of contries. These countries are modernizing them to get rid of some of the outdated rules that exist and are backward giving rules that only lawers would be able to understand.
gorehound

As you have read this is brought on by big corp studios so we should all boycott these studios.i know we love movies/music so go buy your things but instead of buying them new just pick em up used.
Buying used films/music doesnot mean you will get ripped off cause there are a lot of retailers who guarantee their used products.
Buying used will screw these bigwigs corporate asses over but in order for it to work we must all get millions to do it.
The only and I mean only new products I buy are a TV boxset so I can support the show i love and hope it won’t get cancelled.
But as far as movies go we could stop buying those new.
Spread the word around.If you do not agree with me you probably work in the industry.Buying used is cheaper to for all you consumers.and it helps out to do it in a local store giving money back to your local economy.
Lostman

The best argument for an ISP is to declare not filtering the content of its clients data. Its not his job, and its illegal. Even the AFACT or other organism can’t, directly ask for ISP to disconnect anyone. Only a court can forbid internet access to a lone infringer after seeing a real evidence. AFAT is trying to make the justice as a source of benefit and force the ISP to do their job at his cost. This is insane.
Old Timer

Sorry, I should also related my post above @62 with why I asked. Canada has released TV shows through bit-torrent for legal download minutes after the shows aired. They were looking to see the comparison to who was wathinc actual TV screens and who was downloading them (like recording them on a VHS or DVR).

They used bit-torrent so in this instance how could ISP’s in Canada figure out what was legal and what is not…also if you look at it, a lot of Canadian recording artists are releasing their albums, songs and movies on p2p/bit torrent networks to generate audiences and a lot of big named artists have dropped from the CIRA (RIAA in Canada) and challened the whole CIRA/RIAA mindset.

In this age, how is an ISP supposed to know what traffice on their networks is legal, or illegal unless they do deep packed inspection and even then it would only work for non-ssl traffic and almost all bit-torrent’s have SSL encryption enabled.

I really don’t see how the ISP is at fault…I can see regardless of who wins this will be dragged through the courts for years until someone puts a stop to it.
Like Reasoned Mind

“I am leaving music out of the debate because the music model is outdated and am only looking to future distribution models for TV, movies, books, etc”

Sorry but saying that the music model is outdated does not authorize thievery.

How do you thing dinosaurs were feeding their young before the asteroid hit them? by dancing under the stat and with the star?

By showing their butts on TV like Madonna or showing their tits like Janet Jackson?

They too tried to survive by suing the asteroid before it hit them.

The fact that it was not going to work and did not work does not mean
that they were wrong to try.

Paff! what do you have to say to that?

Hum? Hum?

Haha!
Old Timer

@66 LRR, that was funny…

Just want to make sure my point came accross, I am not advocating downloading music or even talking about music specifically as that debate is dead and looking forward you are starting to see the Movie groups come on board.

What I am talking about is downloading, p2p stuff that the producers have already released to the internet for free through whatever means, and is it illegal to share those items for “non-commercial” use.

LRR, I do understand you were doing a parody though :)
Ninja

Like parrots “This evidence is irrelevant.”, “Irrelevant.”, “Your defense is irrelevant [I got the money, you don't so you are guilty].”….

Disgusting. AFACT is the one running away from the relevant facts…

Have I already said MAFIAA and merry friends disgust me?
Ninja

@ 66
Just read your post. ROFLMAO
hahahahaha sue the asteroid… yeah!

Sue the internet… LOL hahahaha perfect
Old Timer

Torrent Freak…can I make a suggestion…if you remove a post, can you just leave a space holder so the people that quote post numbers like @68 above are still quoting the correct message.

Thanks,

OT
jon

it is a copy of original that i downloaded i would not have bought original anyway it only becomes theft if i then sell copy for profit im not im only listening. how people think this is theft to download a song or album is beond me. theft to me is stealing a physical item which the shop would have got money for it .the original still excists the whole argument from the big 4 is laughable
Anonymous

I finally figured out why AFACT call themselves that – the ‘A’ is a negating prefix, like in atypical, or amoral.
Nikolai

Seriously! I have a quick look at the AFACT website and see this right-wing propaganda about the links between piracy & terrorism. Australia is quickly adopting the American style scare-tactics our US brothers have had to put up with for so long now.
Such a shame.
Mindless

Next there gonna start suing everyone with photographic memorys for remembering a whole book movie or tv show and telling someone else about it in too much detail .
I mean it IS making a copy and sharing it . So there’s GOTTA be a loss in cash somewhere right?
Rarr

The logos for FOX etc are still on the bittorrent site. even if the deal was ceased a year ago, the argument is about the confusion it presents to the user. So it is indeed relevant.

And I was under the impression that it would have been illegal for iiNet to monitor the users Internet use anyway.. due to the privacy act and what not.. So I don’t know what they are expecting them to do.

I hope our legal system doesn’t give in to these greedy bastards. Rather than suing everyone, they need to get with the times.

And wtf is channel 7′s claim in this? like they broadcast anything worth downloading anyway.

I thought this kinda shit was above australian courts.. we’re turning into america :(. How can the ISP seriously be blamed?

And wtf is channel 7′s claim in this? like they broadcast anything worth downloading anyway.
Rarr

woops. lol
wow

I’ll be surprised if iiNet wins, this country is so retardly biased towards capitalist behaviour. I would suggest you get a VPN service to ensure your rights as a citizen (or even as a HUMAN) are upheld. Don’t let these corrupt filthy rich fuck heads ruin our country
hmm

Does anyone know if Richard Cobden (iinet’s solicitor) is the same guy who was going against the guys from Kazaa a few years back?
Anonymous

@Reasoned Mind:
please stop PRETENDING to be “an average citizen” and no different from other commenters here.

You are a lying, hypocritical sycophant who ignores EVERY single transgression against public liberty by the music industry but whines and crys about a 12 year old downloading a Britney single.

Stop PRETENDING shill.
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | We R Pirates
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough : Porn Newz - Adult Industry News, Events & Articles
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? | InstantIdiocy
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret @ blog.idtorrent.org
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | We R Pirates
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking : Porn Newz - Adult Industry News, Events & Articles
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking – FUCK THE RIAA
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough @ blog.idtorrent.org
Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking @ blog.idtorrent.org

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

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

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed