Comments on: Movie Studios Suing iiNet For Not Stopping Pirates

By: peter

peter — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:00:53 +0000

All I can say is I agree with everyone’s comments. It is such a stupid waste of time, money energy etc to stop internet piracy. they would make more money getting with the times and using the internet to deliver content streaming either free of charge or at little cost to the consumer. If they did this, and streamed all the content people want, and lower the video quality for example, for free content, they would pretty much wipe out the need for people to pirate as much as they do. I agree, people all pirate as it is easier to get a movie or something else you want that way than other methods on offer.

By: scoobjay

scoobjay — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:18:59 +0000

I love the speed I get on iinet, with adsl2+ . Its pretty much changed the way i use the net, streaming video loads pretty much instantly. Couple that with a work around to use awesome US services like Hulu and Pandora, suddenly theres no need to pirate a large selection of stuff. Unfortunatly, it sucks having to go through hoops to get it working with VPN software, and its not a perfect solution with bandwidth limits and banner ads.

Hulu's quality and selection is great, and in exchange I dont mind that theres short adbreaks. The shows that they are trying to stop us from pirating, are the things we want to watch. The studios will be the first to tell you how great their product is.

So why then restrict the rest of the world from using an efficient, modern and flexible delivery service like hulu?
Why download the episode to my harddrive, when I can just open my browser and start watching exactly what I want to watch?
Theres suddenly no need to try applying restrictive DRM measures. A large chunk of their exact target audience would be satisfied with streaming the Video as they needed. It just seems like a win/win. Sure the TV networks might not be so happy, but theres no reason they cant get in on the act. I use the TEN video on demand service if theres an aussie show I wanna watch. NBC etc do it in the states.
Anyway, it just seems a more natural fit that draconian DRM for this stuff.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:40:54 +0000

I reckon if people can so ISP’s for people downloading content through them, we should be able to sue the government that owns the roads on which people drive away with stolen goods after they break into someones house!

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:37:43 +0000

This AFACT..who the F**K to they think they are?
Here's the facts - they are a bunch of "movie studios" engaging in a global crime syndicate, gross violation of privacy, blackmail, intimidation, threats, wasting the justice system's resources (and ultimately our taxpayer dollars) and countless other serious crimes I don't have the space or time to type here.
Here's another fact AFACT! Ever considered you are "losing profits" because everything you produce, distribute and broadcast is just plain crap? who the hell would watch, let alone waste their quota downloading "Happy Feet" and "I Am Legend" HAHA!
and here's another fact - we know you're parent companies and partners in crime are the RIAA and the MPAA who not only continue to sue aimlessly (and lose) but also continue to rape the artists you claim to protect, by minimising royalties and maximising funding for all those pointless lawsuits, which further exposes your crimes. Just change your acronym to describe who you really are: MAFIA.

Like Malone said, "IF a crime has been committed, notify the police and they will prosecute!" do you sue a brewery because a drunk driver killed your loved one? a tiny grain of common sense tells you AFACT are the hypocrites and criminals here, not the average Joe downloading free content widely accessible in the public domain.
AFACT might as well come clean and finally hand themselves in :)

By: Michael Kubler

Michael Kubler — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:38:47 +0000

I agree.
There is rampant piracy because there isn't enough alternatives.
I don't want DRM crippled movies that try and self-destruct after a single viewing, or can only be used on my PC I downloaded it on, but not my Mythbuntu box connected to my TV.

I'm happy to pay to download TV series and movies from the net, although with the price of Internet quota these days if you do download a 700MB movie, it already costs me a few dollars depending on the plan.

By: mr-crash

mr-crash — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:02:37 +0000

I'm in the market for a new ISP.

If someone from iinet lays down some common sense here - i'll switch to them :D

Why bother iinet. Also, a WHOLE 18?!... That's big dollars there. Maybe $50 on itunes... Go do something important instead.

By: Shane Whitehead

Shane Whitehead — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:01:26 +0000

Honestly, I think some of you should be putting the defense’s case together, those are some really awesome arguments…shame the judge won’t see it that way … :{

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:05:09 +0000

There’s no doubt that content is being illegally acquired more and more in this country. Not only would giving us more legal avenues of downloading our content be part of the solution, how about releasing this content to us at the same time as the rest of the world??!!

By: Cam

Cam — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:51:08 +0000

I reckon they've picked on the wrong ISP. They've decided to make an example out of the fact that IINET have not passed on warnings to users identified of sharing copyright material via P2P networks, rather preferring to pass the customer details back to law enforcement agencies to investigate.

Good on you Michael Malone, the reason they are picking on you is because unlike Telstra/Optus/TPG (who do pass on any warnings from AFACT), you have stood up to AFACT and have refused to be bullied. Bullied into what is (lets be honest here) a poor attempt at addressing the reason why P2P sharing of tv shows is so popular - the tv networks. I quite happily watch tv shows through legitimate means when it is offered to me (youtube, video podcasts, abc iview), but tell me why I should wait several months for local broadcasters to show programs which are being screened in overseas markets many months earlier?

If the law makers define a precedent here then look out holden and the state transport departments... YOU are allowing people to engage in illegal activity when they speed!

By: Nick Broughall

Nick Broughall — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:10:09 +0000

@flamingdrongo – nah, I made that up. I don’t know why channel 7’s on the litiigators list though. Maybe Home and Away?