Comments on: Day Four: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 23:02:52 +0000

Im sick and tired of hearing how it is illegal to share copyrighted files, this is BS. It is not a criminal offence it is a CIVIL OFFENCE its a licencing issue not a copyrighted issue.

I can not be bothered to go into it in detail but it boils down to this most of the copyrighted stuff on thsi planet is licenced for use not sold not rented but licenced. Now a licence is a contract and breaching a contract is a civil offence not a criminal one.

I.e. I make a cartoon starting micky mouse. I do not have the copyright to micky mouse(dispite the fact that it should be public domain by now but that is another issue) so by using it myself i am infringing on disneys copyright of micky mouse.

BUT by sharing a disney cartoon of micky mouse i am breaching the licence of that cartoon but i am not infingming on disneys copyright as they released it to the public under licence(a licence that has to be bought). Actually its the person receiving it that is breaching a lience or in posession without a licence.

I wish someone would bring this up in court i would like to hear there expenation on the above.

By: Az

Az — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:40:01 +0000

“Australian” Federation Against Copyright Theft

Fuckwits are Hollywood movie companies, nothing Australian about them.

Signing an FTA with that shit hole country was the worst thing we’ve done in a long time.

By: silly billy

silly billy — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:13:32 +0000

Senator Conroy is stated to have said that if AFACT lose the appeal, he will change the law to favour AFACT. that being the case, what is the point of anyone in Aus or Tasmania signing up for free, fibre optic cable? it’s only needed for fast downloads of big files! apparantly, Conroy is desperately trying to get people to agree to have fibre, but then wants to stop them from using it (disconnections for sharing copyrighted files). got to be more to this than meets the eye, surely!

By: KickerDude

KickerDude — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:47:34 +0000

Thanks for the Article Open sign ups at http://xblade-scene.org everything on dedicated servers and seedboxes

By: 5318008

5318008 — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:06:45 +0000

Don’t forget you’d get your license suspended for life if someone else got caught speeding in your car, whether you knowingly loaned the car or it was stolen.

Or maybe if someone steals your credit card number, you’re up the creek too.

Also, let’s all pile on AFACT some more, because they’re asshats.

By: Ninja

Ninja — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:32:29 +0000

“AFACT lawyer David Catterns told the Federal Court that the existence of Freezone is irrelevant, since there is no evidence that portal reduced piracy on iiNet’s network.”

There’s no evidence they are actually losing money due to file sharing other than their fully biased bogus studies. So iiNet and AFACT are even now, no?

Ya know, I told this was gonna be amusing..

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:22:55 +0000

Let’s burn down the Hollywood studio again to teach these parasites another lesson.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:14:47 +0000

“The fact that the user may be another person other than the subscriber doesn’t change the fact that the information relates to the personal affairs of the subscriber.”

So this Christian Syphilis is making his own law and telling the judge what he want the law to be.

Me too I can make my own law:

It is a crime punished by death or life in prison to work or assist or provide service or sale to any executive from a corporation of entertainment parasites.

I don’t need a law degree for that.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:06:51 +0000

“AFACT, representing many Hollywood studios, argued that Internet subscribers should be held accountable not just for their own infringements, but for those carried out by anyone using their account.”

This is the way terrorists think an operate:

Collective guilt and collective punishment: September 11.

There is no difference between the corporations of entertainment parasites and El Quada.

Only one solution. We have to K them all.

We shall never negotiate with terrorists, not even talk to them.

By: autumn

autumn — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:03:43 +0000

everyone wants to hope that, if the judgement goes against iiNet this time (i can see that happening!) and a precedent is set (which is obviously what AFACT wants to happen as well) that the judges themselves insist that before any type of action at all can be taken against those companies or individuals accused, there has to be submitted such evidence, such indisputable proof of the ‘crime’ that there is no way to argue against it. at least then the onus will be back to on the ‘industries’ to do things properly, not just accuse indiscriminately for the sake of it or because they can, as they do now!