Friday, September 26. 2008With Parents Like "Mark, Kim, Shane and Amber"....John Linton ....what hope have their children got of staying out of gaol or even making a sensible life in Australian society? I read this article while I was waiting to meet with our solicitors and the Senior Counsel they had recommended to provide advice to Exetel on the constant stream of allegations of copyright infringement sent to us by an entity called 'AFACT': I realise that such articles are usually, if not always, simple 'beat ups' by very junior journalists (of which the Fairfax press seems to have more than their share these days). However, and assuming the pseudonyms' actually were real persons, what has Australian society come to when it provides a 'platform' for such whining, pig ignorant and just plain distressingly self obsessed people to make their incredible comments in a broad sheet newspaper? "I was forced to beak the law because I'm too f***ing bone idle to read my TV guide"?????????? "TV programs aren't real like Movies and songs so it's OK to steal them"???????? OK, it's clear that these four pseudonyms have come from multi-broken homes and they never went past the first year of primary school (what other explanation can there be for such a lack of basic understanding of right and wrong and to progress to an adulthood where it's OK to break the law because an American TV program is the most important thing in your life) but who on Earth allowed them to breed? What are their children learning from these losers - that no regard for anything but your own basic self satisfaction matters a damn? I stopped reading the article in utter disbelief that anyone, no matter that their IQ wouldn't register on any known test result, could actually say the things those 4 'pseudonyms' were quoted as saying. Not the best mood to be in to discuss the serious issues of copyright infringement allegations and their ramifications to an ISP. It's very difficult to think that with people like those four losers proudly proclaiming their theft in a major newspaper that anyone, ever, should get in the way of their swift demise. However, the discussions with the partner handling this issue for Exetel and the Senior Counsel they suggested as being the most suitable to provide the advice we were seeking was very productive from Exetel's point of view. Listening to people who are experienced in not only copyright law but its applicability to the internet (they were involved in 'defending' Kazaa) so there was no 'technical terms' barrier and they had a very comprehensive understanding of the various aspects of the copyright act and other applicable legislation. I have less than a comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the various copyright and other laws and it was somewhat of a relief to me that, as explained in the context of the AFACT scenario, they were as commonsense and as clearly ethical as you would hope they would be. That isn't to say that an entity, such as 'AFACT', couldn't attempt to 'twist' the meaning of the current laws and their amendments via throwing a lot of money at litigation but it was good to hear from someone experienced and designated as an expert in his field that, admittedly at first perusal, Exetel seemed to be doing more than the current laws required rather than being exposed to legal 'danger'. I was interested to hear that, in fact, Exetel may be exceeding the requirements imposed by the current laws but it seems to me that it will be much easier to do less rather than have to do more should that turn out to be the case. While I understand the commercial negatives of that situation it seems to me that, at least in the longer term, the commercial advantages may in fact outweigh the commercial disadvantages. We will provide the additional material on our processes and methodologies of handling allegations of copyright infringements before that very hopeful verbal advice can be both confirmed and put into written advice on which Exetel can rely but, as I walked back to my car, I felt very much better about how Exetel conducts its business in both a commercial and an ethical sense. From my understanding of what was said at the 'conference' Exetel, and Exetel's customers, are fully protected by the current processes in operation at Exetel for dealing with allegations of copyright infringement and in fact probably do more to protect the interests of copyright holders than any other ISPs currently do though the major UK ISPs will be doing something similar in the very near future. In summary, and of course subject to written confirmation, by logging and then passing on the allegation and then logging the customer's response Exetel has more than complied with the requirements of the current laws - based on the fact that one party has made an allegation and the other party has denied the allegation. The remedy to the 'alleger' should they wish to prove the 'denier' is untruthful is via the established court process and Exetel cannot be involved in determining which party is telling the truth outside that process. When you read the total cr** allegedly stated by those whining losers (Mark, Kim, Shane and Amber) you have to believe that the "copyright protectors" aren't totally in the wrong though. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Interesting article, for anyone that didn't know how it happens they have at least told them how to do it now, tabloid journalism as its finest
Comment (1)
John,
I'm sure you'll get tired of me eventually, but these people infringing aren't "criminals". As I'm sure your counsel told you, there is no criminal offence related to personal downloading -- It's civil copyright infringement, and the copyright holder's remedy is to file a civil suit in the Federal Court/FMC. First, I appreciate that receiving threatening letters from lawyers is never fun, but it would be advisable to remember that you have no legal or contractual relationship with AFACT. Your relationship is with the customer, and there's no reason you should favour the interests of the copyright holders. Whilst you don't like to think that any of your customers are out on the Internet breaking contracts (or failing to honour obligations to pay, or infringing on copyrights), you don't need to (and, in my view, you have no ethical obligation to) be their parent or policeman. Secondly, why on earth are you doing more than is legally required of you to enforce other people's copyright? You're not in their employ, they can do their own job! Imagine the following situation: I sold Mr X a car, he made the first payment, but hasn't made the second. I ring up you (his ISP) and demand that you disconnect his Internet service because (on no more than my say-so) I allege that he hasn't paid me. Would you be inclined to help this person? Why? What business is it of yours that one of your customers owes a debt to some third party? I appreciate that you feel some ethical obligation to restrain your customers from infringing on the rights of another company(it's not an obligation that would have sprung to my mind, but I'll accept that you have good reasons for feeling this way). However, to prefer your own ethical judgement over what is legally required of you, and to preference the rights of these third parties rather than your customers seems to me profoundly wrong-headed. In sum: When you're planning what to do about legal nastygrams, bear in mind that copyright holders have civil remedies available to them to restrain infringement and that the people who are allegedly infringing are just that: Alleged infringers, not criminals. Finally, don't be drafted in to enforcing Movie studio Intellectual Property: Remember that they're the ones who have forced you in to retaining counsel and seeking what is probably now heading towards $10,000 of legal advice. Remember that if they'd properly pursued the remedies available to them under the law rather than trying to draft you in to this supra-legal enforcement procedure, you'd be $10,000 richer. Sincerely, Shane & Amber Comment (1)
Dear Shane and Amber,
Firstly let me say that the example of total disregard for the ownership of other people's property makes you, both, highly unsuitable parents and, as clearly you have no shame at publicly trumpeting your disdain for the laws of the country you are fortunate enough to live in, your children will undoubtedly follow your example. Congratulations on being such total losers. Thank you for your, ignorant statements about the commercial risks Exetel are exposed to by your sort of person's blatant criminality. You clearly don't understand the concept of case law modification of statute law. The reason for Exetel seeking truly knowledgeable and expert advice (on which we may be able to rely) is because of the selfish, lazy and criminal actions of people like you. Exetel goes out of its way to protect even our criminal customers but by doing that we expose ourselves personally to possible personal financial ruin and possible inconvenience to tens of thousands of our customers. and for what? to allow unbelievably lazy ****holes like Amber to steal someone elses property because she is too ****ing lazy and incompetent to learn to read a TV guide? I feel really good about people like that. The reality of this current situation is that while you and your brain dead and worthless 'partner' are quite secure in your persistent theft, Annette and I are exposed to losing our lifetime's savings or, at best having many hundreds of thousands dollars of them spent defending our actions. I'm not interested in your pointless and completely worthless and ill conceived views - you and your waste of space partner are unfit parents and you should be totally ashamed of the example you are setting to the children you have misguidedly been party to conceiving and then even more misguidedly believed you could play a part in their upbringing. Both of you should consider, very seriously, sterilization before you do any more damage to the local gene pool. Comments (3)
It seems exetel is in a position to set the standards for Copyright infringements for ISP's.
The way I read you blog it seems that forwarding the accusation on is sufficient while receiving the users response/denial is a bonus. And cancelling accounts is not required. I'd suggest that exetel creates a service like sins to email and fax to email where AFact, ESA and whoever can register an email address, send an appropriately formatted xml file via that address and exetel automatically forward the details on in an email and the abuse block page pops up. The user can deny, cancel or whatever is legally required and the response is logged should a court ORDER be recieved. This way you set the standard, be proactive and don't have to chase down users on staff time. Comment (1)
Your suggestions are sensible and, when we actually receive the advice we have asked for, we will modify our current processes to conform to the requirements of that advice.
Comments (3)
John, obviously you have to maintain your viewpoint for commercial reasons. Its difficult to see how Australians pirating The West Wing are stealing property, given that our national broadcaster paid for the rights to show it ad-free. Many services exist legally in America for viewers to watch TV shows online, Hulu most notably. The market simply hasn't caught up to the demands of its audience.
Comment (1)
Actually the fact is that laws exist and the fact that an individual believes they can break the law (of Australia) and not involve much risk of being punished for doing so doesn't change anything.
Theft remains theft - as defined by Australian law. Thieves are despicable people. Despicable people are simply - well - despicable. Please don't assume that theft is defensible - it isn't. Look in a mirror - do you see a thief? Comments (3)
John
Your moral outrage is a little hard to take. As much of your business relies on copyright infringement. You are like an arms dealer wringing his hands over the horrors of war. Comment (1)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |