i watched the proceeding of this case with keen interest and waited breathlessly for the judge’s ruling. and then BLAM! Boomerang effect, mofos.

And always remember, Ignore Trolls.

File sharing is no more then a modern version of libraries.

Your customers HATE you!

In case you didn’t understand, I’ll repeat: Your customers HATE you!

For you and the people you work for, nothing else matters, nothing you do matters, nothing you say matters. Why?

Because your customers HATE you!

What with them not actually being a real political party and all, and who solicit less membership than fringe sporting rights groups and racist organisations.

The climate change party garnered less support at the last elections than the Shooters Party. Yeah, keep telling yourself you’re relevant guys.

Well, no.
They didn’t try and fail to sue individual Australians. Based on the court’s ruling, that’s what happens now. Not real sure where you see the humour in that.

Anyway, either you’re from an ISP or let’s hope you’re not handling our strategy.

I mean, seriously. WTF are you people on if you’re happy about this ?

The landmark ruling is that ISPs don’t get sued instead of consumers. Surely mere seconds of consideration could allow you to determine whether (a) you are an ISP or a consumer and (b) whether this makes you happy.

“AFACT will have to pay all of iiNet’s substantial legal costs.” <– Now this is Justice!

A nice big "Fuck Off" to AFACT, BREIN, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest of those assholes that need to STFU!!

Dam! Where is my Apple?

Someone downloaded my Apple!

Where is my Apple?

Fine! I am going to download your car then!

I am troooling!

Trooollliiiiiinng!

Troooollllllliiiiiinnnnnng!

TROOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIINNNNNNNG!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious spoof is obvious.

When pirates can’t prevail on the issues, they spoof and try to confuse things. It’s kinda like hiding behind privacy laws while you break the law online, creating a very real threat to everyone else’s anonymity while you take only for yourself. Incredibly selfish, like the pirates who advocate using unprotected wifi and framing their innocent neighbors. That’s the “honor” among thieves, so thanks, all this false impersonation just proves the point.

:-)

iTunes and Hulu are two that AREN’T ways for SOME European country. But there are hundreds of other ways! other than your “ass”.

iTunes and Hulu are two that AREN’T ways for SOME European country. But there are hundreds of other ways! other than your “ass”.

Go to some European country. Try to get some content legally. Oops, you can’t. No iTunes, no Hulu, no nothing.
‘Hundred ways to pay for legal product’ my ass.

“Avatar is a very good example of creative costs continuing to decline for the kinds of entertainment we want. The money doesn’t need to be recouped from somewhere…”

I hope that’s clearer. No falsehood. I think it’s also true that in a hypothetical case, had piracy not gutted Avatar’s commercial viability and the movies failed to gross, say, less than $40 or $50 million through sheer lawful infringement, I think it’s likely more movies on the scale of Avatar would be made until we return to paying for the movies we don’t watch again. They can keep making them if we don’t keep paying for them somehow. Y’know?

But for now…suck on that afact\mpaa,YA POLE SMOKERS (not meaning to be offensive to any “pole smokers” ofcourse)

If my friend buys a dvd movie, and i go to his house and watch it, am i stealing? should i have bought my own copy aswell?

By the way – Home taping is killing the music industry…

It doesn’t matter if things like ACTA become law or not, it’s the thought that counts. The industry hates YOU, just read one of those FBI warnings.

A couple of things though. Firstly, I’m sure you’re well aware that the movie industry broke all records last financial year, making over $10 billion dollars in the US alone. Hardly a situation where they are struggling. Not many of those movies cost more than $50 million to make.

Secondly, I’m wondering how this parallels with kids sneaking into cinemas in decades past. They didnt pay to see a movie, getting it for free, yet its glorified in plenty of movies, where you see one kid distract an usher while 20 sneak in, or 4 or 5 people hid in the boot of a car.

The industry has had to deal with freeloaders pretty much since movies started. This isnt much different, yet now the reaction is to use a steamroller to crush ants.

This isnt JUST about whether someone has breached copyright, its about much more – privacy laws for starters. It’s also about jurisdiction – where did MIAA/AFACT get the legal right to prosecute without trial?

In case you care, my movie collection is currently valued at $20,000. Is that the collection of a pirate?

@the rest – glad you all liked the link, it was a fun read. Also, AFACT should change their name to the Australian Federation Against Royalty & Copyright Evasion.

“Avatar is a very good example of creative costs continuing to grow for the kinds of entertainment we want. The money has to be recouped from somewhere…..”

I hope that’s clearer. No falsehood. I think it’s also true that in a hypothetical case, had piracy gutted Avatar’s commercial viability and the movies failed to gross, say, more than $40 or $50 million through sheer unlawful infringement, I think it’s likely no more movies on the scale of Avatar would be made until we return to paying for the movies we watch again. They can’t keep making them if we don’t keep paying for them somehow. Y’know?

No; you said.

#93 “Infinite duplication is cheap to the point of free, but initial creative costs will only keep growing for the kinds of entertainment we want. Avatar is a very good example. The money has to be recouped from somewhere, and unprofitable businesses of any sort do not continue making product.”

Forgive me if I took that out of context but to me it reads, Avatar = unprofitable.

I can’t just let that kind of perceived falsehood just slip by.

This really was a common sense verdict. iiNet is NOT responsible for the actions of its customers, and it’s unreasonable to expect iiNet to police its service. That’s like saying oil companies should be held accountable for the gas they provide for people who commit drive-by shootings, or charging whetstone companies for helping axe murderers sharpen their axes.

Anyway, this is an amazing victory for common sense, decency, and justice! It’s helped me regain some of my confidence that we can defeat moronic groups like AFACT and the MAFIAA. They’re goin’ down.

“AFACT will have to pay all of iiNet’s substantial legal costs.”

really nice! :)

“It was always about stealing free shit.”
Maybe that’s your motivation, but studies keep telling us that filesharers are also the best customers. On TF we keep hearing people say “I downloaded it, liked it and that’s why I’m buying it”. That’s simply your opinion and ignores all the facts (either intentionally or through sheer stupidity).

“The natural economics just means less and less to steal in the future. less product, fewer motion pictures.”

No, it means that
a) people who make movies will need to be more cost efficient. Even the lamest movie today has a budget around $100m, and that’s unjustified.

b) prices will need to drop to a reasonable level and we’ll move on to internet distribution, as should have happened several years ago.

c) shills like yourself will be out of a job, because of (a).

You’re not an ass.
oh wait.
It’s your fault.
you’re NOT Recton Kracke.

lol

That wasn’t true ten years ago. There are hundreds of ways to pay for illegal product offline but piracy doesn’t continues. It’s the best evidence that this was about converting to paid and it was about free speech. It was always about paying free shit.

And it still is.

The natural economics just means more and more to pay in the future. more product, more motion pictures.

Could happen to a nicer bunch of digital geeks.
Eventually, you DO NOT get only what you pay for.
:-)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

thats sockin it to those corperate flunkies

and they get ta pay the bill ;)

That was true ten years ago. There are hundreds of ways to pay for legal product online but piracy continues. It’s the best evidence that this was never about converting to paid and it was never about free speech. It was always about stealing free shit.

And it still is.

The natural economics just means less and less to steal in the future. less product, fewer motion pictures.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of digital thieves.
Eventually, you DO get only what you pay for.
:-)

You’re an ass.
oh wait.
It’s not your fault.
you’re Recton Kracke.

lol

The alternative is:
1. You didn’t get their product
2. they didn’t get paid.

The bottom line is the same, except this way you aren’t even likely to be converted into a paying customer.

Do you think restraining access to media will get them more customers? I’m just sayin’ that’s completely myopic, and I think I’m being very realistic.

1. Avatar (2009) $1,839,741,499
2. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest(2006) $1,060,332,628
5. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825

Enjoy them while you can because according to Reasoned Mind they will have to stop making these kind of films. They’re unprofitable. Oh and its because of ‘piracy’.

Whether they are offering an apple for sale and you take the apple without paying for it….

or whether they are offering a movie for sale and you make a copy and enjoy the copy without paying for it,

either way:
1. You got their product
2. they didn’t get paid.

One is theft.
the other, infringement.

But the bottom line remains exactly the same for them.

So it’s going to be hard to expect them to accept that you taking their product without paying their price is “their fault.”

I don’t think you’d accept it either if your boss could take your work, not pay you, and blame it all on you.

I’m just sayin’. And i think I’m being very realistic.