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

I think that the notices they already send are reasonably sufficient evidence that infringement is going on. I know there is a statistically relevant false-positive rate but with the ubiquity of p2p filesharing I am sure that number will drop. I don't know a single person who doesn't have some form of pirated media on their computer, iPod, phone, laptop, media centre, etc. What I'm more concerned with is the response options the alleged infringer has. I am absolutely and unequivocally against a 3 strikes system where an ISP must disconnect an alleged infringer merely at the word of some third party such as AFACT. In my view if AFACT alleges infringement and the alleged infringer refutes the allegation then it should not count as a strike until a court has determined, on the civil balance of proof, that the end user has infringed. AFACT/whomever will still get their injunction and account of profits but it will not entitle them to have the end user's internet disconnected. If AFACT then allege infringement twice more, and both times the end user is found by a competent court to be infringing, they can request that the ISP terminate service. Such a request should be accompanied by the three court orders which unequivocally show the end user was infringing. That is the only form of a 3-strikes policy I would even nominally support. If you're stupid enough to be caught – and have a court make orders against you – 3 times, then you probably shouldn't be using the internet and/or should learn to control your network better (for example, if your kids did it). Having said that I think '3 strikes' is a silly idea. Why 3 and not 4? Why 3 and not 2? The Act only requires repeat infringement before an ISP must implement and enforce a policy to terminate services. In my mind 2 infringements, or 4, is as tenable to the term 'repeat' as 3 is. Unfortunately I don't have the ultimate answer to what is reasonable in the circumstances. I don't condone copyright infringement but I'm also not a fan of endless litigation against mum and dad internet users.

From saiphon on Whirlpool

@ Digger I think that what they are trying to prove is that the claims by AFACT are vastly over exagerated as in the instance of 1 user downloading 1 file via bit torrent, every time they got disconnected and then reconnected, AFACT was counting it as a separate infringment and thus generating huge numbers against a small population that could then be extrapolated to a nummber of staggering proportions. All the way along they have been trying to prove that AFACT's claims are exaggerated, this is just more of this.

I suspect the additional point to this is that if the 3 strikes and your banned process that AFACT wants comes into place, then if you are downloading the one file but change dynamic IP's 3 times, then you could be automatically banned, even before you had a chance to repent.

From Shiv on iTnews.com.au — Day Eight: AFACT solicitor grilled on ISP disconnections

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
[]