<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On 5 Mar 2015, at 10:57 am, Paul Julian <<a href="mailto:paul@oxygennetworks.com.au" class="">paul@oxygennetworks.com.au</a>> wrote:<div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; 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;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">The main things that stand out for me based on this small cross-section of responses from all different people is that those respondents didn’t feel that this draft code would make any difference to copyright infringement, didn’t feel that an ISP should be responsible for their users content usage and that they shouldn’t have to bear the cost of implementing such a scheme.</span> </div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>So we’ve reached the State of the Art for 2002.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I wonder who Comms Alliance has been consulting to arrive at such a different result on every axis? Probably better provide them with some critical comments, eh?</div><div><br class=""></div><div> - mark</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></div></body></html>