John Linton ....is a person who watches a group of males, in balaclavas and carrying sawn off shotguns and a large scale laser drill, entering a bank at 2 am in the morning who doesn't call the police?
Can he, or she, make the assumption that they are just a group of eccentrically dressed friends who are paranoid about their anonymity delivering some gun shaped chocolate to another friend who happens to be working in the bank late as a cheer up gift? The drill? Well, they might have wanted to hang a picture or something.
Absurd? Absolutely - the anecdotal person is guilty as Hell of a sin of omission or, in quasi legal terms, probably guilty of being an accessory before the fact to bank theft. Would any reasonable person not call the police? I doubt it (though if they'd just defaulted on a mortgage payment and been turned out of their home by that particular bank they may well reach another conclusion I suppose).
So, as a parent, what do you do when you see one of your children watching a movie on their computer that has only just been released? Do you:
a) Say that can never happen as I never go into my teenage children's rooms without the back up of an armed response unit and a decontamination suit?
b) Silently thank your lucky stars that you don't have to pay for yet another useless video rental.
c) Think that at least it's not hard core porn this time.
d) Congratulate yourself that you gave your children a computer so they don't have to steal other people's property to feed their addiction? (no wait - you can't say that can you?)
e) Shake your head with a wry smile and tell yourself you'll never understand all this new technology.
f) Angrily walk over and switch off the computer and tell your child that if he/she ever downloads copyright material again you will remove their internet access for as long as they remain in your house and start that process by removing it for the next seven days.
g) Accept your child's advice of: "muuuuum, I'm too busy now can't it wait", sigh gently and hope you never have to consult a solicitor and spend a lot of money having a letter like this written:
Dear Sir,
We act for Exetel Pty Limited (
forwarded to our client, dated 2 July 2008 and 9 July 2008 respectively, both entitled
Exetel). We are in receipt of two letters you have"Notice of Infringement of Copyright"
As already requested of you by our client, we ask that you forward all future
correspondence to us.
Our client is very concerned by the unsubstantiated assertions contained in the Notices
alleging that our client’s customers have infringed your members’ copyright in movies
and television shows and that our client may have authorised that infringement. Those
extremely serious allegations have been made without any proper evidence having been
provided to support them.
Our client is unable to respond meaningfully to the Notices unless and until you provide
our client with proper evidence to support the allegations. Our client requires the full
technical details of the investigations you claim to have carried out, including the
following:
1. The detailed process undertaken by AFACT in compiling the schedule titled
(the Notices)."Summary of unauthorized Film and TV Show Transmissions"
Schedule
2. The methodology used to identify the Peer IP address as referred to in the
Schedule;
3. The methodology used to record Exetel’s customers’ alleged usage;
4. The methodology used to identify the files allegedly downloaded as referred
to in the Schedule;
5. What is meant by ‘percentage of the files shared’ referred to in the
Schedule;
6. The methodology used to measure the percentage of the files allegedly
shared as referred to in the Schedule;
7. What is meant by ‘percentage of the files allegedly downloaded’ as referred
to in the Schedule;
8. The methodology used to measure the percentage of the files allegedly
downloaded as referred to in the Schedule;
and
10. The methodology used to measure the number of megabytes downloaded as referred to
in the Schedule.
The Schedule is unclear as to whether it is alleged that the files identified have been downloaded or
uploaded by Exetel’s customers. Please clarify what you have alleged.
The percentage of the "file shared" does not correlate with the percentage of the "file downloaded" or
the numerical value placed on the "MB downloaded". Please clarify.
In any event, it appears to us that in all instances claimed within the Schedule, the percentage of the
file allegedly downloaded (or uploaded as the case may be) is so small as to be completely unusable
in a practical sense and may well not be a ‘substantial part’ of a work within the meaning of section
14 of the
We place on the record that our client denies and takes great offence at the following false
allegations contained in the Notices:
(the);9. What is meant by the ‘number of megabytes downloaded’ referred to in the Schedule;Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)."The fact that Exetel customers continue to infringe the copyright of AFACT’s members and
affiliates suggests that Exetel has taken insufficient action to prevent these or similar
infringements from taking place.
The failure to effectively prevent infringements from occurring, in circumstances where Exetel
knows that infringements of copyright are being committed by customers, or would have
reason to suspect that infringements are occurring from the volume and type of the activity
involved, may constitute authorisation of copyright infringement by Exetel."
We
customers when allegations of copyright infringement are received by Exetel. It is clear that Exetel
has an appropriate ‘acceptable use’ policy in place and take appropriate steps to ensure that its
customers comply with that acceptable use policy.
We draw your attention to section 202 of the
regard.
We look forward to your prompt response in providing the information requested above.
enclose for your reference a copy of the "Exetel Abuse Block" notice that is sent to ExetelCopyright Act. Our client reserves all of its rights in this...or as could be inferred happened in this case - cause their ISP to have such a letter written on their behalf (and pay the quite considerable costs invoved in taking this and quite possibly many other steps involving huge amounts of money because they can't be bothered to teach their children right from wrong?
Can I expect any such people who have done this to give me the $3,000 it cost to get this letter written? Let me think about that......hmmm......probably not. How about the $A750,000 if it goes to a long drawn out court case? Don't have to think about that - I know the answer. How about the $A2 - 3,000,000 that would be a reasonable estimate of the 'other side's' legal costs? The $A500,000 or so that a fine would likely to be?
Why is it that, apart from stealing from "unknown" media companies and their clients do some of Exetel's customers think it's "OK" to steal $A3 - $A4,000,000 from Annette, Steve and me?
It sounds so obvious that a customer of a service company, which they chose as being best for their needs and who charges so little for their services, shouldn't be stolen from in this way - why don't some of Exetel's customers see it as clearly as that?
If they don't - why should Exetel continue to provide them with services?
Did Australian education systems and 'good parenting guides' exclude all references to morality and ethics over the last 30 years?
That seems to me to be the only explanation.