Jason-Saggers.com

I have been keeping track of the whole AFACT vs iinet case for a while now.

The judge ruled in favor of iinet in the end, but now iinet has lost at least $4 million dollars, the good thing is that its shares seem to have gone up so it might just balance out after all, well as long as they don’t re appeal.

Why would iinet be responsible for what its customers download or what web sites they visit. That is upto the customer and not iinet.

“Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled it was “impossible” to hold iiNet responsible for what its customers did online”

iinet says:

“Copyright violations don’t benefit iiNet at all. We would much prefer to be working with the studios to find some way to be able to make video legitimately available to users. We think that’s the best way to tackle piracy on the internet.”

ISP’s could block certain sites, after all they normally have/keep a complete list of IP address, well I know ours does.

I am not to sure how they would block file sharing programs, these programs must leave behind something can is recognized by the ISP so that they can block it from going out to the internet.

Some more from the iinet site:

Continuing his opening statement today, iiNet’s barrister, Richard Cobden SC, said the BitTorrent website which hosts the software and promotes downloading and sharing of files clearly displayed the logos of several of the film studios who have pressed the case against iiNet.

• As shown above, the BitTorrent.com homepage displays the logos of Fox, Paramount and Warner Brothers – all applicants in the AFACT claim. A number of other studios in the case also have contractual relationships with BitTorrent or related sites and companies.
• Despite the connection with several of the applicants, there were no warnings on the sites about downloading copyright material.
• By contrast, iiNet does not own, control, promote or support BitTorrent software.
• Similarly, by contrast, iiNet warns customers against downloading copyright material illegally.
• Mr Cobden also said that if all the copyright notices iiNet received from film studios over a five month period were printed it would take 180 large folders and more than 12 trolleys to bring them into the court.
• Mr Cobden also revealed that Telstra, Australia’s largest Internet Service Provider, had also written to AFACT indicating Telstra did not agree with AFACT’s method for combating copyright infringement.

I personally think it comes down to people/companies wanting more money

Why don’t [laces like the AFACT and the large movie companies etc actually work with the ISP’s in order to find a way to combat these problems instead of taking every man and his dog to court, I suppose these movie companies won’t to be compensated for the money they have lost when people decide to download the movie and not purchase it, I personally prefer to buy it as the crap that you can download is 99% of the time total shit quality.

That is my thoughts on the matter.

No Related Posts