All of their evidence consists of screenshots and log printouts, both of which could be easily faked by anyone with half a brain. Give me a list of the IP addresses they use and I’ll whip up a 100% accurate screenshot of them sharing the latest RIAA albums.

In the US, at least in criminal trials, all evidence has to be handled by qualified personel. They don’t let just anyone handle or take posession of the evidence because then they can’t know if it was tampered with or not.

This prrincipal seems to be ignored where these companies are concerned.

I’d love to see a court case where they pull out their screenshots and the defense loads up a paint program, opens the screenshot and pastes different IP addresses over the ones for the defendant.

Way to go iiNet!

Assume you have a drug dealing business. The source of these drugs is a bit dodgy, by being created by copying someone else’s patented process.

You proceed to give these drugs out to all of your friends, using a clever system of notes.

The person who first created the drug gets in on the act, by approaching you one day, and asking for a sample. In order to make sure no one person carries too many drugs (assume they’re heavy drugs), your careful system of notes sends out several notes to various different people, who then send notes back to the person who first created these drugs, sending a couple of grams along the way.

Unfortunately, the notes system, while technically ingenious, requires everyone to sign their name at the bottom of the note. Now, some people put down a pretend name, or use someone else’s name, but the person who originally created the drug now has a list of names of people who have broken their patent.

Oh hey, they can sue those people.

I said uploaders are infringing copyright, because not every country’s law says “downloading without paying is theft”(think of this very popular statement : the pirates won’t buy that shit anyway! if they can’t download, they won’t give a fuck).

the problem is that these bad bad bad evil uploaders are uploading what they’ve snatched from other evil filesharers hired by AFACT – it’s like this.

A bunch of gangs and mobs come and pass you a bag full of doses. how kind of you, you share it with your friends. since drug is a fucking serious problem that our society has been dealing with, the cops are after you. you’re a plague, you filthy junkie-drugdealer bastard! however those gangs and thugs who handed the materials to you in the first place are allowed to just walk away, because they’re allowed by copyright holders.. i mean the court, the politicians, the bigg companies, and a selected few like cunty blunty and lillie allen.. or what was that girl’s name.

If a company who is permitted to upload content by the copyright holder decides to upload content and distribute it.

Wouldn’t everyone who was involved in the downloading of that content be doing it legally as it was allowed in the first place by the copyright holder?

Bit Torrent is a two way street is it not?

Technically if AFACT hired someone to download and upload content wouldn’t anyone who received content from that person be downloading legally even though it is copyrighted?

If not could i not just as easily record songs, seed them myself and then prosecute anyone who tried to download?

It is like offering someone a cookie than prosecuting them for taking it. I don’t believe they could have it both ways here. Right? ^^

Then where do they get the notion they are?

“Secondly, in the US, police officers … can lie all they want.”

No wonder we have more people locked up than any other country. *Sigh* Where’s the justice then?

The problem is that their “investigators” are no cop and have no right to spy on people period!

Secondly, in the US, police officers do not have to tell the truth at all. In interview they do not, in the initial investigation they do not, they can lie all they want. Ask any lawyer.

Here we go with the drugs again. Some of you have clearly been downloading too many crime dramas.

“iiNet lawyers also produced a document which was alleged to be license agreement between Warner and the defunct Wurld Media, to distribute content via P2P”

Distribute = Uploading

“A further interesting development came after AFACT chief Neil Gane admitted that his organization’s investigative techniques – hiring someone to pretend to be a regular iiNet customer in order to engage in file-sharing of copyright works with other iiNet customers”

What “regular” file-sharer engages in file-sharing with only others on their same ISP? There’s nothing “regular” about what they’re doing.

I can see it now….the undercover cop saunters into the den of a drug dealer. He plays his cool and gets a seat wth the leader. He calmly sits down, and lays his trap out. The leader calmly responds, “Sounds like a good deal, but first I need to know. Are you a cop?” The undercover agent rolls his eyes, stands up and says “awww, you got me!” and proceeds to get shot in the back.

Entrapment is only applicable to law enforment officials. If you (assuming you weren’t a cop) were to convince your friend to do something illegal, while you would be liable, so would he. It doesn’t apply to what counts here as spying.

Secondly, who’s saying they’re uploading? It’s far more likely that they stick whatever they own into google, find the torrent with the most seeds, and connect to as many seeds as possible. Then, any ip addresses that upload to them are guilty of breaching copyright by making available the copyrighted material. It doesn’t matter that they’re making it available to someone who has permission to use it already, the fact they’re giving it away is enough.

And AFACT are representing certain people who do own copyrights, and they’ll be contracts establishing the fact they are looking for people breaching it.

I don’t support them, but their methods are valid. The question is whether or not they are legal.

I was in agreement with you until you got off topic with the drug thing:)

Well, I was replying to “Voice of History” and the line you quoted from my reply was about drugs. *shrug*

No, actually we weren’t discussing drugs at all. YOU were. We were discussing the AFACT vs iiNet case.

Touche!

“Though, for the record, undercover cops ARE allowed to do drugs in the line of pursuing their investigation.”

I’d sure like to see some evidence to support that.

Not sure what country you’re in, but in the U.S., as far as I know, if they are confronted with the question. “Are you a cop?”, they have to be truthful for it to hold up in a court of law.

But seriously, this case looks to be falling apart now in iinet’s favor.

Yep, an investigative technique also known as entrapment.

Though, for the record, undercover cops ARE allowed to do drugs in the line of pursuing their investigation.

“They own the copyright. They’re asking people to download it in order to find out who else is downloading it. They’re using copyrighted material in a way the copyright owners want it to be used. You can’t use that as an argument against them.”

Bullshit. Downloading has not been considered a copyright offense in anything other than industry propaganda. In the real world, in the courts, uploading has always been the offense.

I will help out my local economy over yours any day of the week by buying your movies used and this is helping out my local town and not you at all.

Furthermore I will buy your TV Show boxsets new only to support my fave TV Shows not to support your bloated krap business.

:))

That was bloody poetic truth there, very nicely put.

Cheers!

Copyright lobby groups: spreading hypocrisy since the dawn of P2P.

So from now on we are all Private Investigators using the very same investigative technique.
The chief of AFCAT Neil Gane as given us all his blessing to investigate.