Sell us your movies, iiNet says to studios

pmx (User):

This 'peace offering' indicates that that iiNet knows they got off on a technicality.

iiNet have admitted that content theft (while not 'authorised') is facilitated by their service.

iiNet can see that the writing is on the wall now they are trying to prevent the content owners from getting the law changed to something that threatens their profits.

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting pmx:
iiNet have admitted that content theft (while not 'authorised') is facilitated by their service.

And the iiNet service is in part carried over Telstra network, the power to run the equipment supplied by energy authorities, all of which aids and abets these heinous crimes.

There is no technicality about it, criminals use telephones technology, motor fuel, fast cars and torch batteries every day. To prosecute iiNet is as valid as prosecuting, say Audi, for not making their cars hijack proof. It makes no sense, it carries no logic.

If the overweight dinosaurs that are Hollywood are too lazy to pursue the actual criminals, then tough, it's nobody else business protecting their overpriced IP.

apt.pupil (Advanced member):

Quoting pmx:
This 'peace offering' indicates that that iiNet knows they got off on a technicality.

more like common sense. If you crash your brand new Lexus 2 weeks after purchasing it- do you go and demand it being fixed under warranty?
-gee, that was hard- to restrain from using a phone as an example, since i know for a fact people DO, and i have my fair share of complaints against Consumer affairs for refusing to repair a waterlogged phone-


Quoting pmx:
iiNet have admitted that content theft (while not 'authorised') is facilitated by their service.

That being true, the exact same thing can be said for EVERY SINGLE OTHER ISP IN THE WORLD. iinet was strategically picked because it is comparatively small, but if things played out the way AFACT wanted to- then they would have ground to base their attacks on the larger companies on- which is why i am surprised that the other major fimrs(except Telstra) didn't chip in to help out iinet


Quoting pmx:
iiNet can see that the writing is on the wall now they are trying to prevent the content owners from getting the law changed to something that threatens their profits

Doesn't it make sense to try and protect your rump after it has nearly been thrown on the barbie? if they didn't do this- they would get no sympathy from me when AFACT will launch its inevitable second attack

JGrant (User):

PMX, perhaps we should sue the internet for all the illegal material on it.

lordy16 (New user):

we do need a good way in australia to buy legal digital movies, now we pretty much have iTunes and that's about it. I know I would be buying more movies and TV shows if i could get them easily via legal digital download without ridiculous restrictions on where and when i can play them

JGrant (User):

Quoting lordy16:
now we pretty much have iTunes and that's about it.


Yeah and it's not even HD unless you buy Apple TV. On a projector SD doesn't cut it any more if I'm paying $5 plus. Xbox live movies have a tiny selection and blu-ray players are still too expensive.

SvenV (New user):

Content theft on the iiNet network is also facilitated by computer hardware manufacturers and electricity companies. Perhaps they should also make deals with content owners before their own profits are threatened.

The industry's reluctance to meet the demand for electronic distribution defies understanding. And of course, as Lordy mentions, anything they do provide on-line is almost guaranteed to be crippled by pointless DRM.

Content providers: Don't allow pirates to provide BOTH a 'cheaper' AND superior product! It doesn't matter if you're in the right -- you will lose! Guilt will drive people to pay for EQUAL OR SUPERIOR functionality, but to cripple your own product is to stack the odds against yourself.

SvenV (New user):

(Excluding things like unique key authentication for on-line games, which is a good idea/reasonably effective)

crookedgovt (New user):

You're an idiot PMX. How about they go after the electric companies for facilitating copyright infringement? After all they need to use their electricity to do it.

iiNet understand their problem and they are trying to help them. The only thing that has been proven to stop piracy is to get with the 21st century and compete with its convenience.

crookedgovt (New user):

PMX. How about they go after the electric companies for facilitating copyright infringement? After all they need to use their electricity to do it.

iiNet understand their problem and they are trying to help them. The only thing that has been proven to stop piracy is to get with the 21st century and compete with its convenience.

Nissy (New user):

I think iiNet has been very good about the whole thing. I sure would not be so easy to forgive AFACT for what I can only see is a bogus lawsuit and an equal lack of effort in developing alternative distribution methods. Just as gun manufacturers and store owners are not responsible for gun related homocides, Car manufacturers and salesman are not responsible for speeders and drunk drivers, Syringe manufacturers and needle exchanges are not responsible for drug addicts or overdosers. And internet service providers are not responsible for copyright infringers.

Jammit (User):

AFACT's members involved in price fixing? Conspiring to rip off the consumers? Noooooooo

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162979/Sony_LG_Samsung_Hitachi_Toshiba_accused_of_price_fixing

A home electronics retail store has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp., LG Electronics Inc., Hitachi Ltd. and several subsidiaries, accusing the electronics manufacturers of colluding to fix prices in the U.S. optical disc drive (ODD) market.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/33826

MDL Docket No. 1361 read:

“The Plaintiffs have alleged in two separate amended complaints that the Defendants conspired to illegally fix and control the pricing of Music Products sold to consumers through Defendant Distributors’ adoption and utilization of Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) programs in violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and unfair competition and/or consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that as a result of the conspiracy residents of the Plaintiff States and members of the Plaintiff Settlement Class have been injured by paying more for Music Products than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal conduct. The Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by the Plaintiffs and any violation of law. The Court has not made any determination as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses of the parties to this Litigation.”

In the hot seat were:

* LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
* RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.