Thursday, December 11. 2008
....a pre-requisite for running a West Australian ISP?
Based on this 'release':
that seems to be an inescapable conclusion. Either that or a couple of 13 year olds have expressed their larcenous views on their 'rights' to steal other people's property because it suits them to do so and managed to con some media outlet that it's actually the well considered views of mature and responsible adults.
As the views expressed in the referenced article are almost certainly those of the people it claims to be what an incredible insight it gives into the lack of all decent characteristics present in the people who run the internet 'industry' in West Australia.
I couldn't believe that any mature person could make this totally unbelievable statement:
“The movie industry significantly contributes to the cause of unauthorised downloads,”
How can anyone with a grain of moral upbringing make such a ridiculous assertion that it is the property owner who is to blame for their property being stolen???????????????????????
How dare those people who invest over $US200 million in the latest Bond movie complain that their property is stolen before they have even received one cent in return and try and restrict the morality bereft 13 year olds of the world simply helping themselves to a free copy of Quantum of Solace? The people who run WA ISPs have apparently said its perfectly understandable and they believe there is nothing wrong in such theft taking place because it's all the fault of the people who own the property which is why they refuse to assist the owners in their attempts to stop the theft.
Or this tired, stupid and just plain dumb old chestnut of the people who have under gone surgery to remove their vestigial ethics genes:
“The essence of what the movie industry argues is that the ISP should be judge, jury and executioner."
Apparently apart from having their ethics genes surgically removed the WA ISP managers also failed to go to school while they were in their infancy and adolescence and subsequently failed to acquaint themselves with the laws of the society in which they live.
This statement - which owes it's origin (in the context of copyright theft - it was obviously stolen from previous usage in other more correct contexts) to the wankers in the AIIA - is just stupid. Even mangled in comprehension as the WA ISPs want to use it, it is a nonsense. Apart from no-one losing their life (no executioner) there is no 'judgment' (and therefore no place for a 'Judge') and clearly no consideration of any evidence is being asked to be carried out (therefore no 'Jury' could be described as being part of the process).Using a phrase such as "judge, jury and executioner" (in an attempt to wildly exaggerate what you are being asked to do) would be laughable in a debate between 10 year olds (both for its pretentiousness and its lack of applicability) - but being used by apparent adults it's just plain stupid. What are these pretentious idiots attempting to relate that phrase to?
1) A communication from the authorised agent of the owner of the property being stolen - no abiility to doubt that is completely factual - the communication can't be 'judged' to be coming from some entity that doesn't have the right to make the claim it does
2) The content of the claim is particularised in detail with more information than any reasonable person could prima face doubt is highly likely to be correct - no need to empower a panel of jurors to substantiate the high probability of the accuracy of the information (no reasonable person over the legal age with basic literacy skills could begin to doubt the authenticity of the information provided).
3) The action required of the WA ISPs concerned in issuing the referenced risible nonsense is not to end the life of their contract holder but pass on the accusation and seek a denial/admission that the allegation is true/false.
Does anyone see any request to do anything else - let alone things involving Judges, juries and life ending personnel?
NO - because there isn't/aren't any.
Does complying with the reasonable requests of a reasonable commercial entity involve the WA ISP's publishing their nonsense involve them in any cost or even the slightest efforts?
NO - other than writing a few lines of code, once, there isn't any.
So what can ANY ISP (WA or otherwise) object to or take issue with?
"Given just an unproven allegation of unauthorised copying the ISP should disconnect a consumers Internet and phone."
From what I've seen of copyright breach notices there is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of a request to cut off a TELEPHONE SERVICE. In fact there is no request to cut off anything - the only request is to advise the end user that they have breached copyright and to cease doing that.
Where do these wankers et alia manage to interpret words that don't exist in to a 'request' to cut off a telephone line?
Simple answer - there is none and this part of the ethicless 'defence' is a spurious lie.
This statement sums up the dishonesty of the persons who have allowed their names to be associated with the referred to statements:
"The movie industry is arguing that ISPs should take a bigger role in stopping piracy. It says that when movie studios provide ISPs with the IP addresses of people pirating movies, the ISPs should immediately shut them down."
This is just an OUTRIGHT LIE
What the "Movie Industry" has requested is for the ISP to pass on the notice of copyright infringement to the HOLDER OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF INTERNET SERVICES.
What the issuer of the copyright notice would ALSO LIKE TO HAPPEN but for which there is some doubt in current Australian law (which the current legal action by AFACT against iinet is designed to resolve) is that if an end user doesn't deny the copyright allegation if three copyright allegations have been issued and not denied is that the ISP should suspend/cancel the internet service on the basis there is prima face evidence of copyright breach and no denial from the end user accused of breaching copyright.
Someone with ethics would probably view this situation as completely reasonable.
They would, of course, need to protect themselves from any subsequent legal ramifications by getting an indemnity from the entity alleging copyright breach in the case that the end user was 'innocent' and took legal action against the ISP. I doubt that obvious request would not be agreed to. This, I am guessing, is the crux of the problem. The WA ISPs, and the ISPs that belong to the AIIA, know very well what their options are and choose to ignore them for reasons known only to themselves.
Every statement made by the issuer of the WAIA media release (as reported) is either a straight out lie or a ridiculously stupid misrepresentation of current facts.
You would have to wonder what sort of person(s) thought it was sensible to issue it?
Presumably the lawyers engaged by iinet to represent them in the AFACT law suit weren't consulted before the referenced statement was issued.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I do agree with you, but they do make one valid point
"And the real issue is that no matter what the outcome of this case, you still won’t be able to purchase the latest James Bond movie online for viewing at home."
I know that even the legal download services are bemoaning this state of affairs.
That stupid statement has no validity at all - in my opinion.
Australia, and most advanced cultures, aren't governed by the rabble.
We still, as far as I know, allow the owners of their own property to decide if and how they may or may not make it available.
John, even while you attack WAIA for unfounded statements, you promptly make one yourself.
"they believe there is nothing wrong in such theft taking place"
How one earth can you possibly read that into the WAIA release?
WAIA say that the actions of the industry increase the degree of piracy. They don't condone it - they point out that this huge market goes untapped, and that like in the record industry before Apple/iTunes, there is nowhere to purchase online.
Maybe you also think that Prohibition in the US was a good idea, that it was not doomed to failure, and had nothing to do with the rise of the mafia.
And what happened to your knowledge of the English language? You are apparently unable to recognise the well known phrase of "judge, jury and executioner" for what it is. You object to the use of the word executioner as no one loses their life. Have you ever heard of the terms simile and metaphor? Or are you just pretending ignorance in order to prop up your flimsy argument?
1) Learn to comprehend what you read.
2) I sincerely hope you don't hold a teaching position in your 'institution' given your apparent lack of basic morals and your incredible ignorance of basic facts. God help the children you come in contact with if you do.
There are a number of inaccuracies in both the itnews article and the analysis of it.
Firstly, the WAIA media release emphasises that we do not support or condone infrignement of rights. Our media release includes:
"Consumers then resort to unauthorised downloads. Should they?
Certainly not, unauthorised downloads are a violation of the movie owners rights, they take away income from the movie producers and everyone involved in the movie industry."
In fact, the comments that claim we support or condone unauthorised copying are taken out of context. We do not!
The release was designed to highlight that the behaviour of Internet consumers is not something that ISPs control. Consumers do unauthorised copying. That is a fact. And it is ethically wrong.
If the movie industry attempted to exploit the Internet rather than shun it they could syndicate their content to a huge number of consumers, many which would be prepared to pay for it. This would help the movie industry financially and keep consumers happy.
I can give a simple answer to the qustion fo why ISPs don't want to be responsible for enforcing the rights ... because it won't work! Consumers will find a new way to do unauthorised copying because consumers want the content and will find a way to get it.
What will help to solve this problem is if the movie industry embraces and monetizes the Internet for the benefit of the movie industry and consumers.
As president of the WAIA you would realise that your comments in this reply do you, nor your members, any credit at all.
You talk about:
"that the behaviour of Internet consumers is not something that ISPs control"
but the issue is not "controlling anyone's behaviour" - the issue is passing on the notices of copyright infringement to the person whose IP is cited - something your members can easily do and something that there is no rational, legal or ethical defence for not doing.
By refusing to do that, painless, costless and very reasonable request, you clearly define yourselves as people who care nothing for the rights of the copyright holders and therefore can be judged as condoning the actions of the copyright thieves (the current court action will determine whether you go beyond condoning and actually collude in copyright theft).
Your other comments are at best sententious but more probably just plain stupidly and arrogantly ignorant.
Unless I miss the point of living in a democracy the requirement is to obey the laws as they stand at any point in time not to tell other 'citizens' how they may or may not dispose of their property.
Your 'defence' of "they will find other ways of stealing" is as specious as saying "if I don't sell him the gun to murder the bank teller some one else will".
Publishing such rubbish will not help iinet - it just underscores iinet's, and your own, recalcitrance in refusing to recognise what you are doing.
If you go to the WAIA website you will see that the vast majority of the WAIA committee do not represent an ISP. The title of your article would be more accurate if it says "....a pre-requisite for being a West Australian internet user?"
One of the objectives of WAIA is "To support, encourage and advise on the development and use of on-line services and related innovations". It seems obvious from the iTnews article and Richard's reply above that the WA internet community wants the movie industry to sell content over the internet. Of course whether or not they do it is up to them.
Shifting the movie industry to another release method as suggested would destroy movies as we know them today.
Do they actually think that the film industry will give them the movies in digital and potentially re-distributable format, If they cannot control their idiotic urge to pirate as things stand right now??
Even if we feel that this is not the perfect method to distribute movies its not in our hands to decide how to do it. Breaking the law because we feel the system is wrong, does not make it right.
There is NO justification for piracy.
IF YOU JUSTIFY PIRACY YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
That's where the conversation should end...
External PHP Application