Comments on: iiNet Case: Why the ‘judge, jury and executioner’ argument is wrong

By: Jas

Jas — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:43:36 +0000

iiNet has said that it passed on the allegations and supplied evidence to the police. That does not sound like the actions of someone just ignoring the problem. If the police did not act upon it then you surely you cannot sue iiNet. Village should be complaining or suing the police.

By: A guy

A guy — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:22:05 +0000

Right…

Whatever happened to this post mentioning the Common Carrier principle and provisions in the copyright code?

Support for the users? Yeah… since they gave the details over to the police instead of ignoring them. Don’t think so, amigo.

Let’s forget about this case being the defense of a broken ogliopolistic industry, and downloading being a reaction.. beyond that, this case is crock.

By: Whinger

Whinger — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:57:11 +0000

This is a complete crock. It is a lose-lose situation for iinet. If they act on the unproven allegations and cut off the customer, the customer can go to the TIO and complain about it. The TIO will then investigate the matter and rack up a big bill which iinet must pay.

On the other hand, if iinet do not cut off the customer, they will get sued by the studios for ‘supporting’ criminals.

Is there any way iinet could have won this arguement?

By: Vbl

Vbl — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:57:02 +0000

It’s not that they being asked to be the judge as it fact they are being asked to be the executioner.

The issue is the party being the judge and jury is not an entity that is legally authorise to be a judge and jury, as far as I know in Australian law.