John Linton .....like the people it is intended to serve.
I took/wasted some time reading the AFACT vs iinet appeal judgments over the weekend spread over the two days as it is very heavy going for a legal illiterate like me. I had kept a fair bit of the published documentation from the initial case and some of the less childish published comments on it and it, again, amazed me how much money could be spent on achieving so little. The blame for this must fall squarely on the AFACT barrister, possibly partially on the briefing solicitors, for conducting such an inept case - a little like missing a penalty in soccer it was done so badly. I couldn't help thinking while reading the appeal opinions that even the appeal judges, all three of them, were basically saying "for goodness sake - even a junior barrister should have been able to show the two iinet witnesses were perjuring themselves and that you were not bringing them to account for their obvious contradictions and obfuscations let alone asking even the most obvious questions or questioning the most ridiculous of their claims as set out in their affidavits".
The two judges dismissing the appeal, let alone the judge who wrote a dissenting view, have raised enough issues to make it a near certainty that AFACT will appeal to the High Court where wider views are normally taken in a different context and who knows what result that may bring? When you read the points raised by all three judges you realise that they actually progressed the legal view on downloading copyright material in no real, or any other way, benefit at all. Not that it matters in any particular way as events in Australia are a side show. Long before an appeal to the Australia High Court could be heard it seems more than likely that countries in the EU, more than likely the EU itself, will progress their own legislation that will go much further than the laws currently or about to be in place regarding copyright infringement via the internet.
Like so much in life today the appeal judgment provides nothing of value and probably, if it mattered at all, did more harm than good. Australians are as criminally inclined today as inhabitants of most 'civilised' countries on the planet and whether it is stealing copyrighted material that allows the seamless transition to looting abandoned homes in flood affected areas of Queensland is an interesting question. The prevalent view in Australia seems to becoming that "if you can get away with theft then what's the problem?" Perhaps it is not drawing too long a bow to suggest that the internet and lousy parenting has allowed stealing to become the "OK" option for acquiring things a person thinks they want and other people's rights of ownership are immaterial as they can be so easily overcome. Australia has an unhappy history of dishonesty from January 26th 1788 onwards where stealing when the chances of being found out are low was inherent from that day forward by Governors, Prime Ministers, State Premiers downwards.
Maybe there have been decent elements of Australian society over the last 200 or so years but it has never seemed to be a majority and today I think you would be hard pressed to find the legendary "honest man" very often in any aspect of Australian society. The saddest element of that Diogenic view is that the internet, one of the most beneficial technologies yet seen, is the major culprit of turning potential honest boys and girls into inveterate thieves before they reach puberty and therefore have little hope of ever living an honest adult life.
C'mon Rataplan, time to go to the office and attempt to put in an honest day's work....if we can find something to do that would benefit from such an unusual approach in Australia.
Late PS:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-pirate-code-20110305-1bisn.html
Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2011
ABN 350 979 865 46