<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/11/2014 11:43 AM, Mike Ryan -
Brass Razoo Group wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL6-p+RksoBjFRDyx4ed+DHpMJY1MC=MVRy9QkD7Jc84e1QnOw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>By opposing legislation that outlaws criminal activity
(intellectual property theft) are iiNet giving a tacit nod to
illegal activities? ISP's and carriers are not liable for the
behaviour of their clients. iiNet should stick to providing
shareholder value and ensuring system availability. </div>
<div>It's called "Rule of Law".<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
Some random points in contrast to what I assume you're suggesting:<br>
<ul>
<li>Even the vocabulary that big media uses to characterise
unauthorised copying is prejudicial. Unauthorised copying is
not murder and robbery on the high seas; piracy happens in
Somalia.</li>
<li>Something is only illegal when the law makes it so. Whether
or not it is unethical is another matter entirely, and much more
debatable. See "The Ethical Case Against Intellectual Property"
[1] for an interesting (if academic) perspective on this.</li>
<li>ISPs and enterprise network operators not only should not be
liable for the behaviour of their clients, they also should not
be expected to police it on behalf of big media. If iiNet have
to invest time & effort into doing so, this will have a
dramatic effect on both their shareholder value and system
availability, because it will move costs from more important
areas to copyright enforcement. (Personally, I'd rather iiNet
focused on providing customer value than shareholder value, but
I'm rather biased on that, being a member of the former group,
but not the latter.)<br>
</li>
<li>Unauthorised downloading of movies, books, software, etc. for
personal use is not a criminal offence in Australia; only
copying and distribution for profit is. [2] Big media is
essentially trying to change a civil matter into a criminal
matter to reduce the effort they need to expend to enforce their
rights and to save themselves from looking bad in the eyes of
the public. They should spend more effort on getting their
pricing and availability right, and less on making the
government and ISPs doing their dirty work for them.<br>
</li>
<li>Australia has no fair use laws (which many (most?) other
jurisdictions do) to preserve the balance of rights between
producers and consumers. The proposed changes would shift this
balance further away from the consumer.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Regards,<br>
Paul<br>
</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGUV79yuZ5A">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGUV79yuZ5A</a><br>
[2] I'm assuming the verity of the description of Australian law
here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/berg-coalition-in-murky-waters-in-hunt-for-online-pirates/5511524">http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/berg-coalition-in-murky-waters-in-hunt-for-online-pirates/5511524</a><br>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>