Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: Safe Harbor Protection Intact, Says iiNet

By: AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes | InstantIdiocy

AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes | InstantIdiocy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:53:07 +0000

[...] – and Aussie ISP iiNet (multiple links to all our earlier coverage can be found here, here, here, here and here) is set to conclude [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes - P2P Talk? — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:01:48 +0000

[...] – and Aussie ISP iiNet (multiple links to all our earlier coverage can be found here, here, here, here and here) is set to conclude [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes | We R Pirates

AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes | We R Pirates — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:46 +0000

[...] – and Aussie ISP iiNet (multiple links to all our earlier coverage can be found here, here, here, here and here) is set to conclude [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Tiny Bits of BitTorrent Transfers Aren’t Illegal @ blog.idtorrent.org

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:57:32 +0000

[...] The trial continues in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (multiple links to all our earlier coverage can be found here, here, here and here) [...]

By: MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown @ blog.idtorrent.org

MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown @ blog.idtorrent.org — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:58:05 +0000

[...] ISPs, for enabling their customers to pirate. The most prominent case at the moment is that of AFACT against iiNet, where the anti-piracy group wants the Aussie ISP to disconnect repeat [...]

By: AFACT v iiNet: Tiny Bits of BitTorrent Transfers Aren’t Illegal - P2P Talk?

AFACT v iiNet: Tiny Bits of BitTorrent Transfers Aren’t Illegal - P2P Talk? — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:59:43 +0000

[...] by Reese on Nov.19, 2009, under P2P News (No Ratings Yet) Loading … The trial continues in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (multiple links to all our earlier coverage can be found here, here, here and here) [...]

By: anon2

anon2 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:58:11 +0000

so what is the latest news then? no further closing arguments from iiNet? no decision from the court? no release of how much the judge has been bribed with? AFACT lost and managed to stop the info from being released?

By: MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown | InstantIdiocy

MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown | InstantIdiocy — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:13:44 +0000

[...] ISPs, for enabling their customers to pirate. The most prominent case at the moment is that of AFACT against iiNet, where the anti-piracy group wants the Aussie ISP to disconnect repeat [...]

By: MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown – FUCK THE RIAA

MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown – FUCK THE RIAA — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:58:30 +0000

[...] ISPs, for enabling their customers to pirate. The most prominent case at the moment is that of AFACT against iiNet, where the anti-piracy group wants the Aussie ISP to disconnect repeat [...]

By: MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown | We R Pirates

MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown | We R Pirates — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:37:15 +0000

[...] ISPs, for enabling their customers to pirate. The most prominent case at the moment is that of AFACT against iiNet, where the anti-piracy group wants the Aussie ISP to disconnect repeat [...]

By: MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown - P2P Talk?

MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown - P2P Talk? — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:38:37 +0000

[...] ISPs, for enabling their customers to pirate. The most prominent case at the moment is that of AFACT against iiNet, where the anti-piracy group wants the Aussie ISP to disconnect repeat [...]

By: me3p0

me3p0 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:31:32 +0000

Definitely a case I have been following since the beginning. I still believe in “innocent until proven guilty” which is what a lot of this has to do with ultimately. Essentially AFACT want to be a law unto themselves and send out notices on a whim to have people banned. If this comes through, I can guess what the next major email based malicious attack is going to be.. Forget the “I love you” virus.. This is going to be much simpler.. Simply hijack the AFACT or similar email servers and get everyone banned..

By: the dawns early light

the dawns early light — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:36:58 +0000

Good point Sanchez. I would like to see iiNet win this, but they may have shot themselves in the foot with that oversight. Judges are not too happy if you have not at least made an effort. Lets hope for the best.

By: Sanchez

Sanchez — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:06:07 +0000

iiNet isn’t in as good a position as some might think. Their biggest problem is that the Safe Harbour provisions of the Copyright Act require them to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent copyright infringement, which includes having a policy to deal with accused infringers. Problem is that they have no such policy, and ‘head in the sand’ comments like “the [infringing] activity is likely to account for a very modest percentage of that user’s activity [and] a very modest percentage of their quota” don’t really help their case.

Other ISPs at least have a policy of passing infringement allegations on to their customers, which is perfectly possible to do without infringing anyones’ privacy. If iiNet lose this case, it will be because they failed to take even this step – not because the judge was bribed.

By: Andrew, Sydney Australia

Andrew, Sydney Australia — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:21:03 +0000

Hey, I believe there is a provision for a person to be declared a “vexatious litigant”, which means that they can’t take any more legal action (I’m not sure if that’s against a particular defendant, or generally).
I don’t think this has ever been done to a corporation, but legally there’s probably no reason it can’t be done!
A “vexatious litigant” ruling would certainly make AFACT and other anti-piracy groups think twice about the “nothing to lose” idea.

By: Reality

Reality — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:43:02 +0000

Cool – good closing! Still something tells me the judge will rule in favour of AFACT (I mean by all rights the pirate bay shouldn’t have lost their case but they did because their judge had known ties to copyright groups)

By: withheld

withheld — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:27:58 +0000

i have always urged people to sign up with and support IINET , i even work for optus and tell people that iinet are the best , come on Aussie support AUSTRALIAN ISP’s not Optus that is owed by singaport or telstra bigpond that rip you off out of house and home

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:11:31 +0000

Let AFACT know what you think if the current situation. I have already.

http://www.afact.org.au/contact.html

By: Ad

Ad — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:50:37 +0000

As it is – iiNet should win. The case is BS.

However….legal systems being what they are, and based on other cases around the world….I would not be surprised if AFACT ended up with the verdict they want. Sad.

By: Ninja

Ninja — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:45:48 +0000

Wow… In the nuts. Complete ownage. Afact fails.

Yea James, money we give them against us. Bitter irony.

Amazing argumentation there.

By: Afficianado

Afficianado — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:08:41 +0000

rlslog is a bit frisky at times. try again,their up now.

By: 17th?

17th? — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:58:43 +0000

Offtopic: Anyone happen to know whats up with rlslog.net? They’ve been up and down, and now they appear to be down completely.

By: me

me — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:53:01 +0000

@13 LOL I could see RIAA trying to sue AT&T. AT&T would laugh at the riaa. No way No how.

By: Tigger

Tigger — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:39:05 +0000

Heh, fingers crossed!

Maybe humanity isnt doomed afterall, gives me a small amount of confidence back, people are still willing to fight for freedom =)

By: www.eZee.se

www.eZee.se — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:01:43 +0000

@8,
you mean something like this:
http://ezee.se/articles-blog/2008/07/03/buy-your-mugger-a-gun/

@12 Capn,
What auto tuning and CG effects? Britney does not need all that, she just lip syncs :D
Just google “britney lip sync” and the the number of results you get..

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:37:55 +0000

Meh; I hope for the best here because this case will really be felt around the world.

If AFACT wins then RIAA similar companies around the world will be taking ISP’s to court.

I can see it now in the US RIAA vs AT&T/TimeWarner/ALl other major ISP providers… demanding that ISP’s become the cops because the cops can’t legally do what RIAA wants.

I feel that this major coperations would just be happier if they could throw on a “thieft tax…” Claiming that everyone steals this just makes sure they get paid. Like the Tax on burned Cd’s.

By: Capn

Capn — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:06:05 +0000

@9, Rabbit80

That’s what I argue the most! If they’re so concerned about the payments and well being of their clients they should stop wasting everyone’s money on unbased lawsuits. This $1mill or whatever they spent against iiNet would prop up another Brittany Spears for what.. 3, 4 more months with all that auto-tuning in her voice and CG over her videos?

Real artists will grow no matter what. Ones that need to be propped up will fall but haven’t because of these greedy corporations trying to tell US what to listen to, not the other way around.

By: No-name

No-name — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:04:33 +0000

If we look at this from another perspective, one that know nothing about bittorent or anything like that, iiNet final statement looks to me like it is really accurate.
The problem is, the MAFIAA is full of money they stole from us. The real question is, have they bribe the judge or no, they probably tried at least.
I hope one day, this method will explode in their faces.

By: klio

klio — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:41:41 +0000

@8
conclusion: no legal purchases anymore!

By: Rabbit80

Rabbit80 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:37:50 +0000

@8 James

…money which should go to the artists…

By: James Holdger

James Holdger — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:18:55 +0000

@4:

It’s indeed as you’re saying. Sadly, they have the money to risk.

The same money that comes from our legal purchases of CDs, DVDs, etc. They use our money against us. How ironic.

By: Happy with my ISP

Happy with my ISP — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:17:21 +0000

This is a quote from the faq on my ISP’s web site.

“We aren’t “Big Brother.
What you do online is your business! We never have and never will sell information regarding your internet habits.

Truly unlimited bandwidth.
No caps, limits, throttling, or overage fees.”

More ISP’s should be like this and then they would have more loyal customers like me which is more money for them.

Good on you iiNet, fight the good fight!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:14:44 +0000

Yes indeed only a bribed judge would rule against iiNet. Unfortunately those judges are not in short supply anywhere in the world.

By: gorehound

gorehound — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:05:07 +0000

Because of this case and other stuff I am boycotting Hollywood and MPAA.
I refuse to buy any movies new.NO MORE !!!
i will get movies used.

By: www.eZee.se

www.eZee.se — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:04:19 +0000

The MAFIAA have nothing to lose, basically they are testing the safe harbor law that protects the ISPS, if they lose… they are exactly in the same place they have been from the beginning… if they win….

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:55:05 +0000

Good closing speech. *Very* good. Only a bribed judge would rule against iiNet. The law is on iiNet’s side – they are not legally required to police what their customers are doing.

By: ANON :D

ANON :D — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:15:48 +0000

owned.

By: James Holdger

James Holdger — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:10:48 +0000

Just legal mumbo jumbo. I hope the judge will see this case the way it really is.

With their wrong legal basis, AFACT just should not win this cause. If they want to win it, they have to change the law first.

iiNet have done everything required by the current laws.