AFACT closes with iiNet credibility attack

Bannon's Baloney

One of the things about Bannons argument is that with the cost, time and effort involved in "buying" a region encoded, DRM protected, copy of the movie, is the exhorbitant cost of the said product - most of which are not available in Australia;

That said, if basically all of the downloaders would not have paid for the movie in the first place, how can Bannon and his employers be stating that "it affects their revenue".

These people are greedy and dishonest.

Finally someone raises the reason why ISPs support bittorrent

I think that the AFACT barrister appears to have done a good job with linking the lack of support for the copyright protections with a commercial benefit to the ISP. I think that the linking of the 50% of all network usage and the ISPs commercial motivation for charging more for increased size data plans will scare all ISPs, in that ISPs are now benefitting from the illegal downloads. This link will mean to commercially there must be the potential for ISPs to be sued for the loss to the AFACT clients, and potentially a percentage of the ISP fee might go back to APRA to assist with the payments to the owners.

No one might like this, however it is a way of commercially making this more pallable to all sides. If this is the way in which it goes, then sell your Apple shares, as iTunes is about to go down the pan, if Bittorrent of Copyrighted material becomes free.

Charging too much in modern times

The film studios continue to be out of step with the new market place. Why would consumers pay $25.00 for a download from iTunes when it is lesser quality than a DVD bought retail for $29.00 and which will be on sales within months for under $20.00 if not less than $15.00.

I am happy to pay for download product, I do it everyday but can we get real about costs, distribution, marketing and manufacture. Surely the difference between download and store bought is more than 4 or 5 dollars. No manufacturing distribution packaging costs reduced waste reduced marketing and advertising and the consumer pays for the bandwidth.

In terms of iiNet, they provide a service what users do with that service is up to the user. Lets sue the studios for criminal behavior as a result of audiences acting out having watched a violent film.

By the way. Can I get a refund on all the bad movies I have paid to see??

Charging too much? Why?

Surely the price is the price that maximises the revenue for the studios. If this means that they drop the price and sell more items then they will do that. What it does not mean surely is that if it is too high a price that downloading for free is a suitable alternative? It might mean waiting for 3 months for the album/movie to be commercially avaliable at a discounted price is the right thing to do? Are you suggesting that the studio will get a greater return if the music is discounted upfront?

This opens up the whole question why do people need things now, and cannot wait, are we all turning into a generic Gen Y culture.

If you were charged say $30 extra on your internet connection to allow a Bittorrent protocol on the IP address that is linked to their connection. That way everyone gains, is that such a bad thing?

Thinking about this all wrong

This is a case about whether it is sensible to expect ISPs to do the job of the police in tracking down lawbreakers. Sure the movie studios can hire an investigator to collect evidence, but is the ISP in a position to provide genuine evaluation of that evidence? I would argue no the ISP cannot evaluate the quality of that evidence.

Presuming the data stream is encrypted, all the ISP knows is that one IP address exchanged data with another IP address, and approximately how much data changed hands. No doubt some of this encrypted data is kiddie porn, some is drug deals, some is corporate espionage, and some is copyright violation. On the other hand, plenty of it is perfectly legitimate and the expense of even seriously attempting to decide one from the other would cripple every ISP in the country. Your monthly bandwidth charge would be double or quadruple what you pay now -- everyone would have to pay this surveillance cost, and still most illegal activity would slip through.

The Copyright lobby wants to bypass the need for due process, and just bully ISPs into shutting users down without any opportunity to either see their accuser or question the evidence. This is not a workable model for law and order in this country.

Copyright owners have already been granted the ability to legally organise spot audits on private citizens with suitable paperwork through a court. This is enough, they don't need any extra non-police enforcement powers.

Mick Malones Credibility?

IInets credibility?

Remember the early days of DSL in Australia and Malones dodgy bait and switch tactics?

Malone built the company by offering unlimited off peak downloads when the average cost of a 1GB/512 Plan was $89 a month.

Of course the pipe was completely saturated and the connections during off peak were half of dial up, but Malone kept taking peoples money and pretending that all was ok.

Later he'd blame "leechers" for ruining off peak unlimited for everyone else because they wanted to download too much. The plans changed back to 1GB/512 for $89 and his support drones made it incredibly hard to leave without paying a break of contract fee, despite IINet baiting and switching the customer.

Malone has no credibility and I hope he goes to gaol.

Telecoms

ISPs should be protected from the actions of their users. If I make a prank phone call, Telstra is not at fault. What about if I phoned in a bomb threat? Still, Telstra is not at fault. Even if Telstra had information that I may be about to phone in a bomb threat, it is their responsibility to forward this to the police. It is not their responsibility to create a new vigilante department to police these issues.

Same with iiNet. Yes, they are making a profit from illegal downloading. But then, so Telstra would be in the above example.

What AFACT proposes is that iiNet (and every other Australian ISP) cover the cost of policing these claims, which are civil and not criminal, with their own resources and at AFACT's whim. It is utterly absurd. Particularly for what is essentially an infinite, unlimited, imaginary product.

A decision in favour of AFACT would not bode well, either in the telecommunications industry or other. What's next? Cutting off our water because we share it with the neighbours?

I'd seriously consider the implications of him losing this trial.

It would have horrible consequences for everyone who uses the internet, and probably do absolutely nothing to prevent piracy.