Unless ordered to by the court, which is iiNet’s whole defense pretty much. Personally I think they took the correct approach by demanding more than flimsy allegations, especially where disconnections may be concerned. If someone is breaking the law, then it should fall under the purview of those properly trained, whose job it is to both investigate and enforce the law.

I’ve been following this case from the beginning and I too believe that if Justice Cowdroy is unbiased and neutral, AFACT will in all likelihood lose. Besides being a tad overly stubborn, Bannon has also come across as a bit of a dimwit as well. His personality quirks may have actually done more to hurt the position he represents than his failure to prove any of the arguments he’s presented.

“on this case it is a bit different iiNet is saying what TPB guys should have said is prove it is illegal without a doubt and we will try and help”

no, what their saying is irrespective of the legality of it, it’s not their responsibility to police the traffic content on their network, nor should they be expect to pay for it to protect another companies business on unfounded allegations

Particularly if privacy protecting measures were banned or classed as proof of guilt.

Hopefully the legal system will not allow for that though.

It’s not the ISP’s job to enforce the law, that simple.

Ummm… Austria is a country in Europe. AustrALia is a country in the southern hemisphere. They are, like, different, k?

I have had 2 isp’s try to say that I had malware installed. They advised me to use a program called malwarebytes anti-malware and as I was already aware my pc was not malware/virus ridden. Test came back all clean.

The thing about this is that my isp was trying to say that I must have some virus/malware/botnet or something on my pc bc I use alot of bandwidth. I told them that I use bitorrent & asked them if they ever used it. The it guy said oh yeah, I use it sometimes myself. I told them that thats the only reason why I wanted the internet and signed up for an isp. Before switching providers (I moved), I had to explain to my first isp what edonkey was & I gave them the info plain as day as to what it was & the references to it. They said that they don’t have a problem with me running the app but for simplicity sake I just asked about bitorrent since I figured someone there used it with the second isp.

Both said that they don’t see a problem with me running the applications & that I use up a lot of bandwidth but they don’t see it to be a problem. They just assumed I had some malware/vir/ or some other crap on my pc since I was using a lot of bw.

They were both basically small isp’s who is not used to customers using alot when they pay for alot. Since most of the area that the isp provides service to is rual, most rual people here don’t really know how to use the internet & most only check their email. They are not used to having video flowing through their pipes.

I am switching isp’s soon again since this isp will only give me 768 unlimited and the new isp in town will give me 8-12 mb unlimited.
Grandma can stick to her slow 768 as she’s already retired while the others have their faster service.

Hey Capn, you didn’t come back to me on the other thread. Do you have a myspace or band website?

on this case it is a bit different iiNet is saying what TPB guys should have said is prove it is illegal without a doubt and we will try and help

i life in New Zealand and haven’t heard anything of this case from any of our local or national news sources seems kinda odd since our countries are like brothers

BTW, I think that guy Bannon would make a great stand-up comedian, he seems to be making alot of jokes.

From the beginning AFACT’s argument was flawed. So it’d be a surprise if AFACT actually won… I hope for the best in this case.

That part is actually good idea. Always look on the… erm it is probably still copyrighted so =)

As long as the court is impartial i reckon iiNet has won this.

AFACT are sounding more and more like spoiled children.

Their allegations simply are “WHY AREN’T YOU DOING WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO?” while iiNet responds with, take it to court first.

The case has no grounds to begin with and its wasting the tax payer’s money going through this B.S. In my opinion the court has already been purchased, I feel for the customers of iiNet everywhere.

Just a prediction. Tho, I *DO HOPE* iiNet wins..

AS for the record… what does the IIA have to do with all this? Associations exists, and you DON’T have to comply what they say, unless you want the “adventages” they give you…. Or is imposed by law, of course.

Opposing every external brief that doesn’t directly support their position.