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

By: Make Them Bleed Green

Make Them Bleed Green — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:51:45 +0000

The “gun” isn’t whats important. Its use as a TOOL is. You can replace the word gun with a million other things. Car, shovel, rope, piano wire… you know, for cutting clay. ;)

My point is that people, a judge especially, would have to be pretty dumb to not see through Catterns completely illogical thinking. Most of the comparative arguments AFACT has made don’t hold up at all against the light of reason. As long as these three judges are intelligent and fair, iiNet should once again win. I will be genuinely surprised if they don’t.

By: Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal @ blog.idtorrent.org

Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal @ blog.idtorrent.org — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:01:01 +0000

[...] lawyers for AFACT argued that iiNet had the power to stop its customers infringing on the rights of the studios represented [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:18:52 +0000

BitTorrent itself is not illegal and has so many legitimate use.

There is no law that say otherwise and no court never decided that BT is or should be illegal.

Ab ISP service is even broader it it’s range of application.

By: Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal - Download Movies, Software, Games, Music and More - TPC

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:46:29 +0000

[...] accountable for copyright infringements carried out by its customers? Yesterday, lawyers for AFACT argued that iiNet had the power to stop its customers infringing on the rights of the studios represented [...]

By: Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal | We R Pirates

Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal | We R Pirates — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:20:12 +0000

[...] lawyers for AFACT argued that iiNet had the power to stop its customers infringing on the rights of the studios represented [...]

By: P2PTalk » Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal

P2PTalk » Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:16:39 +0000

[...] lawyers for AFACT argued that iiNet had the power to stop its customers infringing on the rights of the studios represented [...]

By: Hunter

Hunter — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:47:02 +0000

@24:
Basically you are right. But I would be carefull with comparison to something dangerously harmfull.
Even though you own a gun and don’t intent to use it in any humanly harming way (hunting or sports). A weapon as such, designed in the way a gun is, still possesses the potential to pose an immediat an direct threat to life or physical condition.
While a gun could immediately harm or kill someone if used against him, torrent, filesharing and even copyright infringement can’t!
IT CAN NOT KILL OR HARM SOMEONE PHYSICALLY.

Antipirate organisation like to compare abuse and “illegal” acts to such severe crimes like robbery, life threats, violent physical theft or even just theft (which could be argued fiolesharing is not even THAT). But they are NOT.
They exaggerate to mannipulate the public attitude through emotion.

To prevent such the law is set to restriction of commensurability.

So, please, while I might understand your argument, don’t use potentially lifethreatening things in comparison with completely harmless ones.
Just a thought.

By: Make Them Bleed Green

Make Them Bleed Green — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:14:22 +0000

Just because one uses a tool (a very useful tool at that) doesn’t mean they automatically support what others do with that same tool.

For example, the fact that I own a gun does not mean I am a murderer or that I support murder.

The argument that Catterns is trying to make is idiotic at best.

By: jovialau

jovialau — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:06:36 +0000

@12 In a nutshell!!!!!!!!

By: Ninja

Ninja — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:40:13 +0000

“Catterns also referred to a press release that iiNet had sent out earlier about its legal battle with AFACT. The fact that the ISP chose to use BitTorrent (it ran its own installation of RivetTracker) to distribute the announcement, argued Catterns, sent a message that it the ISP had no intention of doing anything about infringements.”

So, the fact that the police use cars as means to do their job means that they have no intention of doing anything about speeding cars and cars transporting drugs. Makes sense if you read it twice! [/sarcasm]

Bittorrent cuts distribution costs you morons. You could learn a thing or two with iiNet.

I remember in the first trial I was amused with AFACT’s reasoning. Replay, any1?