Top posts on iiNet vs AFACT case: Part II

As the case unfolds, more people weigh into the debate, and here are a few we thought were worth reading

The music and film industries could spend their money more wisely by investigating better ways to allow people to buy music legally online.

While the majority of the population of Australia live in towns and cities along the eastern coast, many Australians are spread out in small country towns or on stations and mine sites around the outback where there are no dedicated music shops and the selection of CDs at newsagents and roadhouses is limited and overpriced.

The present system where people can download encrypted music files online from their ISP's website or some other website and then purchase the decryption key would be wonderful if it would work properly and if it could be made reliable. Some of the time it works okay from the customer's point of view, and I think most consumers would actually like to support their favorite artists. Too often though, things go wrong. For example when the decryption key a person paid for got corrupted during the download and fails to work or when all of the decryption keys are lost during an operating system re-install necessitated by a virus. It can be a big hassle and waste of time for the consumer to be kept waiting on the phone for hours in a queue for technical assistance to resend your decryption keys. Providing of course that the tech assistant believes the consumer's story.

After being run through that kind of bad experience a couple of times consumers soon become frustrated and learn to shy away from purchasing encrypted music downloads. Some of us actually work hard outdoors physically for our dollar. No-one compensates the consumer for the time they spend tied up on the phone, and surely the consumer's time is worth something too.

The other problem with the present system is it doesn't work for Linux users. People are forced to use proprietary operating systems which are inherently vulnerable to viruses, defective and costly to maintain if they want to make music purchases legally.

What about the poor consumer? Is anyone considering the wishes of the consumer here? Have we forgotten the old saying 'the customer is always right'? Why doesn't AFACT stop wasting it's money bothering our ISPs and do something constructive.

From herm546 on iTwire —AFACT, iiNet head for the recess playground

judging from the critical comment of "AFACT: our evidence not 100% reliable" the judge/magistrate should just throw the case out of court, if they can't prove it 100% then there technically shouldn't be a case to answer to. the same thing happens in criminal cases, if there is no evidence to backup the acusation or alleged evidence is patchy the likelihood is that it will be thrown out of the criminal court in criminal terms: the burden of proof relies solely on the prosecution or in lamens terms innocent until proven guilty and in this case it would appear as though the AFACT /prosecution can't prove very much at all as they did not have a warrant to collect physical computer systems and perform forensic data analysis on those systems.

Sorry if that makes no sense and sounds like a ramble but its true no evidence usually = thrown out

From Anonymous on ZDNet Australia —AFACT: Our evidence not 100% reliable

A very good point made here. What about all the mum and dad internet users with unsecured net connections. We all know or know of someone in the past who has stolen a nearby net connection for use.(I do NOT condone that nor have I EVER done it) Are those people then going to recieve a letter stating they will have their net cut off. They wouldn't have a clue what was going on!

Sharing is careing people.

Anonymous on ZDNet Australia — Kazaa witness takes iiTrial stand

If I borrow your car, and commit a hit and run, should you as the owner of the car be automatically convicted of dangerous driving and jailed?

It must be proven that an actual person committed a piracy offence, and that person should be charged, as opposed to automatically disconnecting the account holder simply because they are owner of that account.

In households with children, flatmates, resident guests, visitors, etc, any one of these people might commit an act of copyright piracy. You cannot punish the law abiding account holder for crimes they did not commit.

Anonymous on ZDNet Australia — Kazaa witness takes iiTrial stand

Join the newsletter!

Or

Sign up to gain exclusive access to email subscriptions, event invitations, competitions, giveaways, and much more.

Membership is free, and your security and privacy remain protected. View our privacy policy before signing up.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags iiNetAustralian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)Federal Court of Australia

More about ACTetworkIinetLinuxTelstra Corporation

Show Comments
[]