Comments on: AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes

By: defacto

defacto — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:17:48 +0000

What this really comes down to is:

If your ISP is privately owned, they have a vested interest in providing the most convenient, open, unencumbered connections available in order to attract more clients.

If your ISP is owned by a Media conglomerate, they have a vested interest in providing the most crippled, caged in, restrictive connections in order to continue bilking uninformed clownsumers out of money for things they’ve already paid for twice.

Time Warner & Paramount should just start advertising their movies on TPB and Google, with .torrent links and extra CocaCola / FOXNews ads inserted to cover the perceived loss of revenue.

By: campocebe

campocebe — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:28:52 +0000

Dear Author torrentfreak.com !
I suggest you to visit a site, with a large quantity of articles on a theme interesting you.

By: Zappy

Zappy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:07:59 +0000

If iinet win they will claim for costs against AFACT and they should be successful.

By: John

John — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:56:43 +0000

Sue the companies AFACT is defending because they made the material which is being used to break copyright. If it wasn’t for them, no one would have broken any laws.

By: Ridley Walker

Ridley Walker — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:29:43 +0000

Take the power company to court for providing a facility used to power the servers which provide a facility to move the illegal bits around!

By: Bob Roberts

Bob Roberts — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:35:52 +0000

sorry for the gramatical errors…. damn inability to edit.

By: Bob Roberts

Bob Roberts — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:34:40 +0000

Sorry guys, but i’m all for the actions of AFACT. It costs money to make those movies you watch and music you listen to, and thousands of people are employed just in cinemas around the country, and not all of them are the nameless faceless corporate types like Hoyts & Greater Union. Some of them are people you know and they rely on sales of films and music to earn a living. Stealing music or film is no different to going into Ford and trying to drive out in a new XR8 without paying for it, and you wouldn’t think that was a legitimate thing to do.

People make the products you enjoy, and you should have to pay for them. I you dont want to pay, you be prepared to do without the product.

No, I dont work for AFACT either.

By: d[iO]nysus

d[iO]nysus — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:30:31 +0000

Hey iiNet… where can I donate some funds to help your case?

By: John Paul Jones

John Paul Jones — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:46:13 +0000

@#50 Anonymous Sounds about right to me!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:13:04 +0000

Judge: So your case has no basis in law?
AFACT: no
Judge: You don’t have any legal or constitutional way for iiNet to act on your demands?
AFACT: no
Judge: You have no solid evidence or facts to back up your argument?
AFACT: no
Judge: You’re still right to contribute to the bar association?
AFACT: yes
Judge: Court finds in favour of AFACT.