[AusNOG] iiNet update

Chris Jones chrisj at aprole.com
Thu Feb 4 16:59:27 EST 2010

Ssh! Don't give them too many ideas...!


On 04/02/2010, at 4:55 PM, Darren Moss wrote:

Do you think AFACT understand what layer 3 is.

Next they will filing against Cisco for providing the infrastructure to allow copyright infringement.


Darren Moss
General Manager
Australia and New Zealand
[p] 1300 131 083 [f] 03 9017 2287
[e] Darren.Moss at em3.com.au<mailto:Darren.Moss at em3.com.au> [w] www.em3.com.au<http://www.em3.com.au/>

em3 People and Technology | Managed Technology Experts
postal: PO Box 2333, Moorabbin VIC 3189

New Zealand Airedale Street, Auckland City
postal: PO Box 39573, Howick 2045
[p] 09 887 0550 [f] 09 887 0273

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 2010-02-04 4:15 pm
To: Nicholas Meredith
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] iiNet update

I think at the very least the Judge is acutely aware that the Internet and Bittorrent are different things. You use the Internet to get Bittorrent, you can't use Bittorrent to get the Internet.

Well worded law creates effective understanding and interpretation. They could go and say "iiNet provided IP transit services at Layer 3, but was not responsible for the Layer 4 protocols that their users chose to utilise for the illegal proliferation of copyrighted material". Sure, it might be more accurate, but it's far from being a useful. Would you prefer that a judge ruling on a shooting refer to it as "an act of penetrating the victims torso with a small calibre round of ammunition that was shot through the air after being propelled out of a gun that was held by the defendant"?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Nicholas Meredith <nicholas at udhaonline.net<mailto:nicholas at udhaonline.net>> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Bevan Slattery <Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com<mailto:Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>> wrote:
"copyright occured as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet"
said Justice Cowdroy

I couldn't be happier for the sane ruling on this case, but this begs the question, does this Judge have ANY idea at all what the Internet is? I'm referring to the context of a home user who sees the World Wide Web as the 'Internet' and E-Mail and everything else as just E-Mail etc. The statement above shows a lack of comprehension that all services are 'the Internet.'

Or are they breaking it down into OSI Layer2/3, where the Internet is defined as IP connectivity, and not the application protocols that reside above?

- Nicholas Meredith

AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>

AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100204/e8cc7e93/attachment.html>

More information about the AusNOG mailing list