Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: Half of All iiNet Traffic is BitTorrent

By: absolutelylivid

absolutelylivid — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:08:23 +0000

Who’s AFUCT?

Long live iiNET!!

By: Antipirates state “It’s impossible to block Pirate Bay”-TorrentFreak « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:32:17 +0000

[...] It’s day twelve 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, day seven, day eight, day nine, day ten, day eleven. [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” @ blog.idtorrent.org

AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” @ blog.idtorrent.org — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:58:20 +0000

[...] day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six, day seven, day eight, day nine, day ten, day eleven, day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: It’s Impossible to Block The Pirate Bay @ blog.idtorrent.org

AFACT v iiNet: It’s Impossible to Block The Pirate Bay @ blog.idtorrent.org — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:58:40 +0000

By: AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” – FUCK THE RIAA

AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” – FUCK THE RIAA — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:50:51 +0000

[...] day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six, day seven, day eight, day nine, day ten, day eleven, day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” | InstantIdiocy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:53:09 +0000

[...] day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six, day seven, day eight, day nine, day ten, day eleven, day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work” | We R Pirates — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:38:00 +0000

[...] day one, day two, day three, day four , day five, day six, day seven, day eight, day nine, day ten, day eleven, day [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet - GotGames.com.au

AFACT v iiNet - GotGames.com.au — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:55:22 +0000

[...] v iiNet AFACT v iiNet: Half of All iiNet Traffic is BitTorrent | TorrentFreak [...]

By: DJM

DJM — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:18:46 +0000

@ Comment 2 by quantocks

I wouldn’t exactly called iiNet ‘small’ – they’re the nation’s third largest ISP

By: wf

wf — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:23:13 +0000

Malone said the company referred to legal downloads, such as those from iTunes. Bannon countered by saying this could not be the case, since iiNet did not count downloads from iTunes towards a customer’s bandwidth quota.

Malone should have said “podcasts” instead of “iTunes”. There are lots of TV shows freely available as podcasts direct from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.

Malone had said that BitTorrent transfers accounted for around 50% of all Internet traffic and admitted in court that BitTorrent had been used on iiNet’s network since it became available. He went on to agree that while much of this traffic involved the transfer of movies and TV shows, he didn’t feel that “..every young person in Australia is downloading illegally using BitTorrent.”

Malone should have said, “use of Bittorrent is not illegal and not all Bittorrent traffic is illegal.” Bank robbers often drive cars and 90% of all highway traffic is cars yet highways and cars are not illegal.

Malone again confirmed that iiNet has no formal policy on how to deal with these type of allegations, noting that the company had yet to be presented with evidence of what he described as a “repeat infringer”.

Malone should have said iiNet is a “common carrier” and has no obligation to monitor, investigate or restrict the data on their network. AFACT can get a subpoena just like anybody else.

I’m starting to think iiNet will loose this case. Of course it seems like most of these half-baked cases are so rigged that the legal arguments might not matter anyway.