<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Beeson, Ayden <<a href="mailto:ABeeson@csu.edu.au">ABeeson@csu.edu.au</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">+1 this. Though they deny it, the user -> IP listing is the ONLY thing they don't have to start directly harassing people for Copyright infringement notices sent from the US media companies.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Notwithstanding that they can never get a “user->IP” mapping, they can only get a subscriber->IP mapping.</div><div><br></div><div>This is something they know, having had their arses caned over it repeatedly in US courts, and having had the full bench of the High Court in Australia kick them in the face about it in AFACT v iiNet (so hard they had to change their name to recover their reputation. "AFACT? Who, us? We don’t know any AFACT…”)</div><div><br></div><div>It’s possible to pay someone to continue to believe things they know to be untrue, and that’s what we have with the copyright industry and our A-D, and so here we are. The fact that they earn their money by being professionally wrong doesn’t mean anyone else has to provide them with the benefit of any credibility.</div><div><br></div><div>Who here is making submissions to the copyright consultation that closes on 1 Sep?</div><div><br></div><div> - mark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>