Do I sense MAFIAA being pwned?

The new law says they must take action to stop repeat infringers. So basically AFACT said okay here is a list of infringers do something! They refused, and so AFACT took them to court.

The new law says they are responsible, but if they take steps to prevent this they are forgiven.

“So I guess when a car owner leaves their car locked but someone steals it and runs someone over with it, the the owner should be responsible for that?”

While I completely agree that it is the same thing, you must understand that there is no law the provides for the owner to be responsible. With copyright there *is* law to make them responsible. In order for these analogies to be correct the government would have to pass a law to add that responsibility.

The blame here is not on iiNet, AFACT, the Courts or the People, but on the Government for creating this law.

I would like to point out that in civil cases in the U.S. it has been argued, successfully I might add, that failure to take all reasonable precautions makes you partly responsible. What this means is if you live in a bad neighborhood and you have no alarm or anti-theft device you can be responsible for that death financially. It is totally insane, but yes the nice 12 people on the jury bought the argument.

Net Neutrality is forgotten Down Under

“The content will be free to view and iiNet won’t even count the bandwidth its customers use on these downloads.”

Apparently no one seems to reads the articles that are written. It does not say “Downloads” only “free to view”, ie Streaming. Why is this free to stream? The content providers partner with iiNet to provide streaming servers located on the iiNet network so there is no expensive bandwidth.

“2. iiNet is possibly one of the most proactive ISPs when it comes to not charging for digital content bandwidth (http://freezone.iinet.net.au/ – examples include the ABC’s iView as well as iTunes – and now possibly one of the current litigants, Village)”

Again the same thing, local iTunes servers in AU, and iTunes et al probably pay iiNet for bandwidth to their customers. But this is limited if you read the freezone info. If you have naked DSL it counts towards your bandwidth, why? no juicy telephone revenue each month. If you use DNS servers other than iiNet it *may* count towards your bandwidth. Wow where is free open DNS?

iiNet is *not* altruistic by no means. Here we have a great example of a Non-Neutral Network provider. They chose based upon payment of bandwidth charges, who is free and who is not. This may seem all good and well, but what if they decide to amp up the fees or add their own content?

How is this related to Net Neutrality, Lets see. Take this example, They say to iTunes we want 30% of the sale price of the content. Apple says “No” They say okay you are no longer in our freezone. No you have a choice paying for DRM riddled content or getting Free DRM-Free content off the net, either way the usage counter runs. A small Indie label wants in, but cannot afford to pay, tough for them! Or what about this one. You have a network that is a streaming partner that streams movies via the freezone. They decide hey we are going to license the movies directly from the studios or content owners and block out the this network since we are not making enough money from them. Now they pick the movies they have up there based upon what they can make off it (Ie Cheapest content for highest $$ return) vs a network that showed what you wanted to see which now has the bandwidth counter going.

In the end they control what is free and what is not based upon how much cash they get from it. That does not sound “Neutral” to me. Now companies deserve to be paid for the bandwidth that people use but history with big companies greed shows they will not stop once they see the $$$$$$$ start flowing in. Content Provider and Internet Service provider should be separate not the same business entity.

IMHO!

So is the phone company going to be held liable also?

What about the power company it’s their electricity actually doing the “crime”

Intel,AMD….actually I usually use my Sony TV on my torrent box…I think they might have to be taken to court to…

Meh…it’s all bollocks either way, I’m costing them no money, I have no money with which to purchase their products…hence they have lost nothing.

The scenario you describe sounds more like an unauthorized use of wireless (leaving out he could break into the home and connect a computer).

Bye bye traceability LoL

No onion router needed.

Brief discussion about it:
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/731-sp04/readings/dcnets.html

No more IP’s W00T!

Who ever uses the IP address doesn’t really matter – they’re still using iiNet’s services all the same.

Far more interesting question is – should an ISP be responsible for regulating the internet?

My opinion – hell no.

But hey, i’m not on trial :P

http://bit.ly/torrentfreak

On two separate occasions while on the phone to my ISP troubleshooting a packet loss issue, they ‘attempted’ to connect to my cable modem. They ‘managed’ to connect while it was unplugged. At this point I asked them to tell me what they have listed as my IP, the IP they have was wrong.

Note: My IP does not change after a power cycle.

The IP given was one I had many months ago, and evidently was now in-use by someone else.

Therefore if you receive a notice of infringement, it’s entirely possible that someone else was responsible, and your ISP’s IP logs are incorrect.

ISP: Comcast Atlanta Georgia.

This is the point Cygnus, AFACT’s proof is not proof at all, just suspicion of infringement.

Proof only comes about after due process via police investigations and court proceedings. So how could iiNet behave any other way?

Peoples connections and therefore rights cannot be terminated based upon pure suspicion and the fact one party says so.

Quite frankly I do not think that the Australian court system will tolerate another group claiming domain over legal due process and circumvent the true court system.

ALOT OF people are not tech minded! I went to see a friend and guess what there was 10 Unsecured networks around the house. Too me I can down load all sorts of shit because they haven’t but a password on it.

Because I have an account doesn’t mean I should be fucked! It’s retarded and Music industry should change there ways instead of using fear and trying to control the net.

Fuck how about Stop this chasing BS and get people who Sell the fucking music. Wasting so much money on hunting down shares is guy period.

Me too I enforce the law myself. I believe this is fair.

The entertainment industry is guilty and the penalty is death.

Sorry! They lost their appeal!

IP address is magic! The CIA, MI5 MI6 the DGSE are using IP adress all the time. They have terabytes of Ip addresses all arround the word. My IP Adrress that I am not using your IP adress that I am using. And I am uploading shit right now. Sorry!

You are? In what country?

Lunaville?

The ISP’s contend that only a court may give the order to disconnect a user.

AFACT is basically trying to cut out the courts, and enforce the laws themselves… and by iNET’s refusal to do so, has taken them to court.

Quite ironic.

You actually missed the point. The key here is that “YOU” are responsible for what happens on your network. However, according to this trial going on, AFACT is claiming that “YOUR ISP” is responsible for what happens on “YOUR” network.

Therefore, Toysoldier’s example (#6) is perfectly valid. “You” would be represented by the driver while the “ISP” is the car manufacturer. The manufacturer should NOT be held responsible if a driver is speeding using one of the cars they bought from them.

They have accused network printers and dead people of infringement.

Jeesh!

You are forgetting the point that there is the entire point of innocence until proven guilty. An ISP should not be required to do anything until a court orders it to do so.

AFACT may have mentioned to iiNet that they “suspect” people are infringing copyright via their pipes, but the burden of proof is still for AFACT et al to provide proof through the courts and therefore police investigations, as iiNet is not allowed to snoop on their customers due to the privacy laws within Australia.

So no official proof via the courts and the police, then how can they actually know what their customers are doing with their connections? Should they trust some IP harvesting technology which is kept “secret” and simply accept AFACT’s word?

Sure everyone can guess and have a pretty good idea, but in a court of law (in a fair land) that sort of evidence is non binding opinion.

As for ankle tapping an athelete…well the analogy is closer to a dude on a penny fathing competing against Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. And AFACT and the studios certainly aren’t on the latest racing bike.

And the so inept new business model you deride, is actually one from the distribution branch of the studios themselves in Australia aka Village Roadshow.

What if the account holder is a business owner, or the accounts payable manager for a company ?
What if I.T., Fire-walling, and routing for this said company was outsourced to another company ?
What if the above was true and employees, or even contractors were using the network for downloading copyrighted content ?

Who is responsible then ?
The business owner ?
The Accounts payable person ?
The outsourced I.T. Company ?
The Employee or contractor ?

Seriously, wake up !
Not everything is as simple as a single PC Household.

Are you a fucking idiot? Have you tried understand about networking, protocols, IP address, NAT before sprouting rubbish?

What a dumb fuck.