Don’t you see the irony in accusing the judge of being open to bribery without any evidence?

The only movie Cinema’s I will go to now are ones that provide beer ,meals and a really comfortable lounge .Some Cinemas offer this and I don’t mind paying the premium price for a night out but overpriced popcorn watered down soda and a overcrowded cinema is a rip off .

If TPB would check the claims for infringement they would themselves be infringing when it really is what they claim it is (or sometimes even when its not their copyright).

Finally the fact that AFACT foucussed on iinet and bombarded them with notices, while ignoring most other Australian ISPs, could be seen as imposing an unreasonable burden upon iinet. Thus AFACT may have given iinet a nice little opening to wriggle through.

I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the BitTorrent protocol.

I can download just 4 MegaBytes of a 4 GigaByte movie and upload 100GB to others, I would just share that same 4 MB with a lot of people. The only person that is guaranteed to have uploaded every part of the file is the original uploader (given that there are other seeds who have completed the download).

Tony Bannon:-

http://www.tenthfloor.org/default.asp?menuid=5&artid=72

Tell our number one anti piracy group what we think.

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

Also, I’m still not sure if I’m gonna buy it. Where’s the stripped value? And I saw that movie recently that was so bad I regretted even the energy spent downloading it. Where’s the value to be stripped there?

Inconvenient facts are indeed inconvenient.

But hopefully all these entertainment parasites will be dead by then.

Hopefully.

All the ISP receives is an ACCUSATION from someone – they don’t have to believe this someone and they are not legally allowed to investigate but they are allowed to pass this accusation (true or not) to police for further investigation.

It’s just like you going to a mall owner complaining your wallet was stolen somewhere in the mall – the mall owner is not allowed to stop and search each person coming out of the mall to look for your wallet. However, he is allowed to call the police and tell them you got robbed.

The police may or may not believe you but they investigate further by asking you if you actually had a wallet or a purse, through what stores in the mall you went, request surveillance tapes from the mall for the time frame you were in the store and so on.

Just the same, police can ask AFACT further information, on what they base their accusation, how reliable is, they’ll request from the ISP who was the person that had that IP in that time frame, maybe they’ll visit that person home and so on…

But you see, here’s the actual problem. Imagine AFACT sending 5.000-10.000 of these accusations to the police each month. Do you think the police has the man power to fill paperwork and put policemen to go between AFACT and ISPs for each of these alleged infringements?

Is it worth spending about 10$ in police time and work for each investigation only to catch probably 1 in 15-50 people? And it doesn’t end here, AFACT then has to sue that person and pay lawyer fees.

This is why AFACT wants to skip the police and have the ISP pass their accusations directly, because they know police are not capable of doing their work for free.

:-)

Inconvenient facts are inconvenient.

Why even bother then with this trial if you are going to hand over logs directly to police without proof of the event actually happening. Doesn’t your isp have a policy such as 3 letters and your disconnected?

“While the studios had earlier insisted that they would never sanction unlawful investigation methods, “

Since when did the studios tell the truth?

“
Last week, Cobden argued that AFACT hadn’t provided any evidence that iiNet customers had engaged in copyright infringement as they were only sharing small parts of files (such is the nature of BitTorrent), rather than the “substantial” parts, as required under the law. In order to prove his point, Cobden went on to cite an earlier copyright case.”

Why give letters to police? With all of the frivolous takedown request and c& d & all the other, this could potentially mess someone up who was not even aware or didn’t even use their internet to download whatever. When I have Bit torrent & ed2k/Kad parties, I don’t know what the heck people are sharing. How can I be reliable for what they share when there are many people present at the parties? How can the isp give my info to police without hearing from me first or telling me about it then go to court over infringement themselves but give letters to police? Kind of messed up totally giving letters to police.

I would rather the isp pass the letters onto me then to the police straight up.

I hope that our newly formed Pirate Party takes a great deal of notice to this, and the impending trial involving the creator of Skippy being a complete and utter tool by even attempting to sue over this DVD crap, and bring this to the public and those who do have the power to listen.

This whole trial is just Holywood cracking the shits because they cant evolve as fast as the consumer. Pack of wankers.

In order to be able to defend ourselves efficiently should the need arise.

Also in order to work on changing public and media perceptions.