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':
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/illegal-downloading-hits-epidemic-proportions/2008/09/23/1221935645031.html
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.