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.

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.

Thanks,

OT

Sue the internet… LOL hahahaha perfect

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

Have I already said MAFIAA and merry friends disgust me?

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 :)

Sorry but saying that the music model is outdated does not authorize thievery.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

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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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.

Exactly.

Oops! I should not have say that!

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!

… 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…

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

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

“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.

Yes, definitely.

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

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.

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!

“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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Via http://www.freelancehomewriters.com

Is it how you find them too Reasoned Mind?

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.