John Linton
....a pre-requisite for running a West Australian ISP?
Based on this 'release':
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/90844,waia-blames-movie-industry-for-illegal-downloads.aspx
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.
THAT'S IT
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?
ABOLUTELY NOTHING
"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.