In the closing stages of the iiNet vs AFACT case at the Federal Court of Australia, online debate about the pros and cons of each side's arguments continues unabated.
As the case draws to a close we take a look at some of the best posts in online forums this week.
See the first week's top posts
See the second week's top posts
See the third week's top posts
Week 4:
By Tony on AFACT vs iiNet: AFACT alleges iiNet argument "deficient" I am glad iinet does not disconnect services because a private company tells them to. Copyright infringement should be proved in a court of law, not just in a letter. Maybe AFACT should try to actually make a legal alternative to torrents, instead of attacking an ISP. Lots of people have phone services through their broadband service, and it should take more than a letter from a privately run company to disconnect these services. I am with iinet all the way here... Prove it first in a court, then disconnect. I would hate to think an ISP was forced to monitor every packet of information sent and received from all their customers computers. Major privacy issue. Just remember, every time you download a movie, a poor Hollywood executive has to drive a Porsche instead of a ferrarri.
By Goezer on AFACT vs iiNet: AFACT alleges iiNet argument "deficient" Why is the argument that until AFACT has a police order/conviction all information provided is still an allegation of wrong doing. iiNet can only terminated a customers account if the customer is proven to be guilty in court. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system.. Its not the other way round.
By Enigmatic on AFACT v iiNet: BitTorrent tracking details featured What a load of rubbish. There are so many glaring holes here, it isn't funny. The issue has never been the imposing of infringements but in iiNet's ability to KNOW when an infringement has occurred. Torrents are now encrypting the data that is sent to the point where it is not possible for the ISP to know if their customer is downloading illegal material without invading their privacy to do so. Just to show how ridiculous this is though... Where does it end? It it becomes iiNet's resopnsibility that their service is not used for criminal activities, does that mean they have to monitor and read every single email that is sent? Every chat that is made? Just to make sure people aren't using their internet to organise crimes? Don't they have to become big brother in order to be able to ensure this? It simply isn't feasible... We don't go after Telstra when terrorists use phones to commit crimes, we don't go after taxi's who carry criminals, or public transport which may be used as a getaway for a crime. The onus should be on those who COMMIT the crimes, not on those who provide LEGITIMATE services which are being used in a NON-LEGITIMATE way. How about we make the government responsible who pay to support people who are committing crimes? Why not make it the government's responsibility that they don't give money to anyone who is a criminal? Impossible? And yet we try to make ISP's responsible for the activity of their customers!!!
