Day 21: iiNet sample users didn’t take up quota offers

By Ry Crozier on Nov 24, 2009 11:28 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Customers not scared by the prospect of shaping.

ISP iiNet’s sample of 20 customer accounts surfaced in the copyright case showed there was “no correlation” between infringing activity and download quotas, the Federal Court heard today.

As the case resumed, iiNet’s lead barrister Richard Cobden provided a brief analysis of the accounts in his closing address in an attempt to dispute the studio’s assertion that iiNet was encouraging infringement on its network by offering customers upgrades to higher-capacity plans.

The upgrades would allow users to download more illegal copies of films because they would avoid being shaped (having their transfer speeds reduced), the studios had alleged.

In his analysis, Cobden said that user "RC01" used only half of its allocated quota in June. Another, "RC05" used 23 percent of its quota in October, 2008.

Cobden said that of the accounts sampled, “15 were shaped at some point during the year”. He said 10 upgraded to higher download quotas over the year but there was “no correlation” between the upgrade and the users wanting to download the applicant’s films.

“And one of them downgraded [during the year], which is inconsistent with the applicant’s assertion,” Cobden said.

“We’re not suggesting it’s excusable for somebody to download these films [illegally]. What it does demonstrate is that when offered an upgrade, they’re not taking it to download more of the applicant’s films.”

Cobden said that telling customers when they were approaching their quota limit for the month was a “business service” offered by iiNet that enabled them to either budget their remaining quota for the month or upgrade to prevent being shaped.

The case continues. You can follow the case in-full here. For a background on the case, click here.

Day 21: iiNet sample users didn’t take up quota offers

14 comments in this discussion

"Man how much are they paying you Digger11?"

By TruthSphere

Tags

iinet, afact, cobden, closing, submissions

iiTrial: High Court weighs ISP responsibilities

iiTrial: AFACT dismisses individual user suits

iiTrial: ISPs 'set up' by rights holders

iiTrial: Court mulls 'partially effective' ISP warnings

Breaking Stories

BigPond emails will be stored overseas

Google shapes as digital dividend dark horse

Oracle buys Taleo for $1.76 billion

Scientists tout super-fast hard drives

Alstom Transport eyes single project system

Comments: 14

freman Nov 24, 2009 4:23 PM	AFACT really REALLY need to sit down and think things through - 1: based on what I've seen your average episodic content is between 400megs and 1.5 gig - in fact, you can cram most of your dvd rips in there too. But to simplify this argument lets say 800 megs Given a user who has a 50 gig limit, they could download 62 files of this size per month... just how much content does AFACT produce in a month? More importantly, how much is it worth wasting the time to download? That's 750 dvd rips or really tv episodes per year... Surely there can't be that much worth watching?
Dangolbery Nov 24, 2009 6:40 PM	You've got a point there with the how much of it is 'worth watching'. Very very little. The companies represented by AFACT produce truck loads of crap. If i don't watch it at the cinema i'm never going to watch it. What am i missing out on? Trashy cop/doctor shows. Get some creativity! I don't download any of their crap either so i'm not really the people they are talking about :-P. And as for music, well i'll never pay for music. Stop p2p and i'll just go back to recording it off the radio/tv. If you want my money for your music hold a concert. They're all as bad as bill gates... spamming up my computer cause i wont give him $50 for a shitting product when he's walking around with 50billion in both his pockets. I wish i could steal bigger things from that ceebomb, like his car... or wife.
Digger11 Nov 26, 2009 12:26 PM	So what does Cobden think users with huge dowload limits are doing with it ??? Accessing Email every 5 seconds ? What a ludicrous defence by iiNet. Who do they think they are trying to kid ???
pete123 Nov 26, 2009 1:10 PM	There are more than enough legitimate uses of bandwidth that the very idea that anyone going close to their limit is doing something illegal is laughable. Personally, the most significant use of my peak bandwidth is from watching (downloading) on my networked media player free HD program from Revision3. But, frankly, it's none of their business what their users are downloading, any more than it's their business what their customers are discussing over their network when using for VOIP or the contents of their emails.
Rhino Nov 26, 2009 1:11 PM	You know Digger11 that gaming takes up download quota, legal torrents take up download quota, viewing web pages, streaming video or music etc etc etc all takes up download quota. I believe Steam uses p2p as a means of updating their games, and PS3 and X360 also uses a form of p2p to play on-line games, updates etc. The company I work for receives and send large AutoCAD drawings. That all takes download quota. Extra quota is important for some people for all the above reasons, not just downloading copyright material. You're ridiculous statements only cement your place on the internet as the total idiot you really are.
Sams Nov 26, 2009 2:59 PM	Rhino: "You know Digger11 that gaming takes up download quota, legal torrents take up download quota, viewing web pages, streaming video or music etc etc etc all takes up download quota." Digger would prefer that we go back to dialup, for the good of the movie industry.
Digger11 Nov 26, 2009 5:14 PM	Rhino/Sams, How are your customer service roles at iiNet going ? Better get back to the phones. Note that iiNet received notices from AFACT that copyright material (not online gaming or Linux distro's) was being stolen by iiNet customers - and iiNet donwrightly refused to act. So iiNet knew exactly what their customers were doing (and were happy to take their subscription money every month as Malone testified to). Most other ISP's did the correct thing and sent the AFACT notices to their customers. For those that love analogies - its like Vicroads being told that a corner on a highway is dangerous and refusing to notify their cusotmers (i.e. put up a sign saying to slow down). There is some onus then on the road user to be careful - but if the company cannot even be bothered to warn the customers (like iiNet) then the company must be found guilty. All of you iiNet employees just don't like how terrible your management team acted. Shame Malone, shame.
notthelongestusernameever Nov 26, 2009 5:50 PM	Digger, I know I'm just buying into your cockbiting trolling; though it needs to be said. Firstly, if iiNet didn't take the money from their subscribers if they were found to be pursuant to copyright infringement would they be in court? No Digger, like most ISP businesses, they don't cease to charge you if you do something - they would only remove the service. Hasn't it also been repeatedly mentioned that they don't know who the customers were who were doing the downloading (only their IP's?) If VicRoads did not put a sign up, and a drunk driver had an accident at the dangerous corner - would a court of law in Australia find them responsible for this? Could I expect that I could sue Australia Post if you sent me a harassing letter? No, Digger, I don't think anyone needs to tell you how small you are and how much smaller your arguments make you seem. Firstly I can't believe you have this much time up your sleeve, surely down at the AFACT offices they have you working tirelessly preserving virgin rainforrests, incubating the eggs which will form the next fleet of fairy penguins and doing the other humanity enriching things which make this the best darn world that the movie studios tell us it should be (thank Will Smith for stopping those aliens for me!) Back in your box Digger.
Sams Nov 26, 2009 6:19 PM	"How are your customer service roles at iiNet going ? Better get back to the phones." Actually, as a programmer, I run my own consultancy, and have nothing to do with iiNet - pretty easy to work out since I was on these forums long before the iiNet court case was discussed (but I fully understand and commiserate that you have a lot of problems understanding and using the Internet). I'm sure there is a "For Dummies" guide that is just right for you. The business was a tad quiet for a while, but is perking up now that consumer confidence is increasing. Thanks ever so much for asking. While we're on that topic, how is the dole queue going for you? I hope iiNet at least offered you job-finding assistance after they fired you? I think they were a bit harsh in using the term "incompetence" with regard to your work there - "handicapped" or "disadvantaged" might have been better?
mattaugamer Nov 27, 2009 11:46 AM	There are a lot of uses for bandwidth apart from movie (or TV) piracy. Myself I use approximately 100 gig a month. The bulk of that goes in downloading video game demos and preview code, promotional videos from publishers, etc. Online games consume a significant amount as well, and things like Youtube and internet radio a steady stream. I also use Sony's Vidzone service a surprising amount, and it burns a lot of bandwidth. I do not pirate things off the internet. The point is the internet is moving to higher and higher bandwidth - Youtube will be streaming at 1080p soon. iiNet are just moving with the medium.
Rhino Nov 27, 2009 1:11 PM	LOL @ Digger11, is that what you're reduced to now. All you're posturing about how evil iiNet are has come down to calling people iiNet Customer Service people. I know I know, you're never going to talk to Malone or Dalby ever again. By they way you never explained that statement. Our points above were to discuss your obviously moronic statement of: "So what does Cobden think users with huge dowload limits are doing with it ??? Accessing Email every 5 seconds ?" What we were trying to do, and from reading the above posts rather successfully was provide various uses for large bandwidth to try and open your eyes to a much bigger picture. Myself lately it has been very large 3D AutoCAD files for buildings I have been working on. That all takes up substantial chunks of my internet usage. Add onto that my PS3 gaming, Vidzone and now the ABC tv thingy on my PS3 all takes up bandwidth. So to say the only reason ISP's increase bandwidth is to promote illegal activity which you obviously agree with is simply one eyed and incorrect.
btone Nov 27, 2009 3:01 PM	Jees Dig, seen the new Telstra 200 gig download plans? Pretty expensive but obviously a thinly disguised invitation to download heaps of pirated stuff eh? I guess you could call it 'donright download theft advertising? No? Bannon sure did (with slightly better spelling) and he is obviously very close to your imaginative ethos. NB: standard apology rider for troll feeding
zag Nov 27, 2009 4:31 PM	@Digger: you should be more careful with what your saying. This web page is copyright so your huge download quota and ISP is forcing you to download copyright material. You of all people should know that is dangerous in fact it could get you kicked off the net! As for notices getting passed by all ISPs, please Telstra and Optus both don't send them on as they have no legal bearing as was said in this court case. Your analogue, is wrong for the fact that the driver would be responsible for their own driving not vicroads, that would apply regardless of their being a sign or not on a road. Generally signs are only put up after so many crashes have happened at a certain place on the road. Plus it doesn't allow for any leeway for those people who don't do what the sign has written on it. So applying what your saying should happen is that if a movie studio was to pick your IP address and it was traced to your account for what ever reason then your account should be disconnected straight away, and you don't have any recourse to fight the charge made against your account.
TruthSphere Nov 27, 2009 6:20 PM	Man how much are they paying you Digger11?