Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking

By: PennysDad

PennysDad — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:34:45 +0000

Sadly, I think iiNet’s lawyers just aren’t up to it, or they would’ve had the case thrown out of court by now.
Let’s face it everyone, there IS a whole lot of pirating going on, but you can’t hold the ISP’s responsible.
It’s like trying to hold Oil Companies responsible for car accidents, isn’t it?
It’s many of us, the end users, that are doing the wrong thing, and yelling the loudest.
Yes, I s’pose I’m just as bad as some too, sorry.
…. but by the same token, companies are claiming huge losses due to pirating and bit torrents, yet their profits and pay outs to share holders don’t seem to support that claim.
They are still cleaning up, and all the CEO’s seem to be still doing OK.
Let’s change the focus on how legal THEIR affairs are.
How many musicians and associated industry workers etc, do all the work, only for the cream being taken off the top, and distributed amongst all those that DON’T deserve it. eg, CEO’s and share holders…..
So is pirating and bit torrenting really the issue or is it just a way to keep everybody’s focus from what’s really going on?

By: Annie Moose

Annie Moose — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:07:38 +0000

With all this new information proving AFACT is lying, inflating the evidence, and has no case to begin with, I can’t imagine how an unbiased jury could ever possibly charge iiNet.

Of course, the court systems are all biased, but there’s always a chance! There’s always a chance.

By: Fixer109

Fixer109 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:40:50 +0000

Just a thought and maybe you may put put me dowm as scaremonger but:

Are the supossed superpowers using these cases (and funding them) to allow DPI ( deep packet inspection) to become law so in the end we will have no privacy at all.

Here in the UK there is already a law authourising the courts to oblige to give away your passwords for encripted files so that the ‘police’ can acertain whether you are using this for distribution of child pornography or planning terror attacks.

Where is you privacy now!

lets go out and fight for our demogaphic right to have privacy on the Internet and stop all these scare tactics used to take this away from us

By: Ibbatarab

Ibbatarab — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:58:14 +0000

If I were not already locked into a contract with another ISP I would give serious thought to subscribing to iiNet for fighting this case.
ISP’s should not be held accountable for what their customers do with bandwidth that they have purchased.

By: Yo

Yo — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:05:33 +0000

I agree that the case has no merit for a number of reasons, but I’m not a prize fighting kangaroo judge down under.

By: theAntagonist

theAntagonist — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:17:34 +0000

Judge Judy would have said that this is bullshit and the case thrown out of court long.

By: suomynonA

suomynonA — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:37:45 +0000

@Yo

I’ve heard it said before that emotional arguments tend to win, not factual.

By: Pook

Pook — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:17:02 +0000

Isn’t submitting evidence that you know to be inaccurate a crime in Australia?

Surely it is…The case really should have been kicked out & AFACT should have been charged costs.

By: matt

matt — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:03:50 +0000

@18, “we have a claim and it’s not based on fact” will not tide well with the judge. Considering that iinet is not a normal citizen who is bled dry as they sue them, I put all money on iinet not losing this case.

By: Yo

Yo — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:47:26 +0000

The only problem I see with these arguments is that courts, in general, don’t like when the truth and facts are complicated.
Court wants everything to be reduced to some “common sense” type of BS such that court can claim that they made a clear judgement based on the “facts”.

If they can’t do that, they simply ignore evidence and rule on “intent” because it’s much easier to pass off one’s beliefs as “facts” in this case.