John Linton
......has become an oxymoron - or perhaps it always was?
I have a compulsion to read while I have breakfast (except if I'm having a sit down breakfast in company) and as my usual business day breakfast (if it can be called that) is either consuming a glass of grapefruit juice or a bowl of cereal at the kitchen bench lasting less than 5 minutes I'm not fussy about what I read. This morning the closest reading material was yesterday's TV Guide section from the SMH (not something I have any interest in usually) but it was open at a page which had a heading of "Copyright Theft" and dealt with Channel 9's banning from the Olympic games venues for filming in the olympic pool area which is prohibited because the Olympic Games is "owned" by Channel 7. It went on to say that Channel 7 was hypocritical because they had run a section on one of their 'current news for the mentally retarded' programs in which they appeared to encourage copyright theft via illegally downloading TV programs - I really couldn't be bothered, even if I had the time, to actually follow the argument as it was clearly one of those spite pieces that dominate such 'news' sections of the press.
However I was reminded of just how large business organisations have moved away from any semblance of upholding responsible attitudes when I read this 'article' some 30 minutes later in today's SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/isps-join-the-copyright-fight/2008/08/06/1217702054216.html
Now, the last thing I want to do, or Exetel wants to do, is get involved in any legal stoush about what is right and wrong in the conduct of the difficult enough business of running an ISP service but, for Heavens sake, the comments made by the IIA (and I realise they are making the comments they are told to make by, in this case, Telstra, Optus, iiNet and Internode) are just too pathetic to be acceptable to someone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size and/or who has been introduced to the theory and practice of ownership and it's rights and wrongs for the under fives.
What person over the age of eight would advance this as a reason for not forwarding a notice of alleged copyright infringement:?
" Even then the ISP can't say who at the address did the downloading."
Just how stupid does the person have to be to whom you are making such a defence to allow you to make such a just plain ridiculous statement? EVERY ISP has a contract with the person who signed up and paid for the service and the contract that was entered into doesn't make provisions for who uses the service - it only covers the terms and conditions of use of the service. So if a third party alleges the service is being used for illegal purposes then the person to be notified is the person who has contracted for the service and, if they allow others to use the service then that is and remains entirely their responsibility.
Are Telstra, Optus, iiNet and Internode attempting to say they have no contact details for the person who signed up for the service and whom they bill each month?
Clearly not - so what a crock that statement is. As is this one:
"Mr Coroneos says the technology is not accurate and recent
attempts to warn US users caused erroneous notices to be sent to
"teenagers and dead grandmothers".
This is claiming that an ISP's records are so incorrect that they have been deducting payments from the credit cards and/or bank accounts of people who have shuffled off this mortal coil and/or they have illegally entered in to contracts with minors!! Take your pick of which of several laws these ISPs have already broken if they seriously want to use that statement as how they run their businesses.
And to cap it off this poor guy has to then finally say:
"But Mr Coroneos says the matter must be resolved by due legal
process. "I'm not sure people would be comfortable in living in a
society where their internet connection can be terminated without
(the allegation) being tested in court."
Quite right - but that isn't what is being requested as far as I can see. What is being requested is that the "allegation" is passed on to the person alleged to be infringing copyright. Is there anything wrong with this scenario? From what has been reported neither the UK Government nor the six largest UK ISPs think so. At first sight, subject to more sensible reasons being provided than have been made in the referenced report, and also sensible legal advice on the actual laws in Australia I can't see any ethical or sensible reason why an alleged copyright infringement notice isn't passed on, with total confidentiality, to the alleged infringer - all I can see is that it benefits the alleged infringer by making them aware that, perhaps, someone they have given access to is endangering them by using the service they are paying for to infringe copyright and therefore exposing them to legal retribution.
Of course if the alleged infringer actually has full knowledge that they are actually infringing copyright deliberately and consistently then the notice of alleged copyright infringement is also of great value to them - they become aware that what they thought was undetectable is not and that their actions might result in unpleasant repercussions should they continue to use their current methods for infringing copyright.
Everybody benefits (except dead grandmothers who by definition can't be inconvenienced by such an action) and teenagers (whom, as minors, the law prtotects from the consequences of their own actions).
I would be surprised if the views expressed by Mr Coroneos, on instructions from various people at Telstra, Optus, iiNet and Internode, were the views of those organisation's lawyers - I've never met a lawyer, no matter how incompetent, who would be stupid enough to advance such specious arguments.
This is my personal view and not Exetel's corporate view. Exetel's
view(s) (and therefore actions) will be determined by Exetel's lawyers
and Exetel's lawyer's SC advice providers.