Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement?

By: Borderliner

Borderliner — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:17:22 +0000

The problem, I think, boils down to one simple thing: AFACT ain´t saying how and what is exactly gathered. Unless they provide information confirming that the “offenders” were uploading (and not only uploading, but uploading correct data) then they can´t claim any non-authorized distribution was taking place. After all, just because a BT client announces that it has a certain hash doesn´t mean that it really does have the data that the hash is generated from.

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 17:48:25 +0000

[...] AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking Easy AdSense by Unreal It’s day eight in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six and day seven). [...]

By: 5318008

5318008 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:48:27 +0000

Powned

By: Reasoned Mind

Reasoned Mind — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:47:51 +0000

Hi, I’m Reasoned Mind and I sniff butts.

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 11:39:22 +0000

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

By: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking - P2P Talk? — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:46:00 +0000

[...] by Reese on Oct.15, 2009, under P2P News (No Ratings Yet) Loading … It’s day eight in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six and day seven). [...]

By: Rekrul

Rekrul — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:59:10 +0000

What I want to know is; Are these anti-piracy agencies bonded/registered/whatever as qualified evidence gathering and handling organizations?

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.

By: Ninja

Ninja — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:39:02 +0000

iiNet prepares heavy artillery. AFACT is going down!

Way to go iiNet!

By: Sad Truth

Sad Truth — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:47:18 +0000

The only solution is to kill everyone over thirty.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:01:55 +0000

To fix 39′s analogy.

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.