<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/23/2015 8:51 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ausnog-request@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog-request@lists.ausnog.net</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.1841.1435056714.950.ausnog@lists.ausnog.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, if <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>you<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> are the first test case, how do you plan to show to the court what
you interpreted as reasonable, and how you tried to use reasonable means? The court
order won't tell you what 'reasonable' might mean, or what measures might be
considered unreasonable. The content organisation that asked for the injunction
certainly won't tell you.</pre>
</blockquote>
Well funnily enough, most web hosting providers hear in Australia
prohibit the hosting of copyrighted material and will remove it from
the servers if they find it. Or unless you can prove that you have a
licence for it. <br>
They have all this stuff outlined in the Terms of Service agreement
when a user signs up. <br>
The majority of hosting providers have the ability to Terminate
accounts quite easily, or they can suspend accounts at a minimum. <br>
Also Geo blocking is considered reasonable, yes I know it does not
work that effectively, but as long as it looks like your doing
something the courts don't have an issue. Most judges don't have a
clue when it comes to IT. <br>
As for the VPN argument, that is outside of the ISP and web hosting
providers control and so it would be up to the VPN provider to give
the courts your details. <br>
Long story short these laws won't make a difference. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Chad Kelly
Manager
CPK Web Services
web <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cpkws.com.au">www.cpkws.com.au</a>
phone 03 9013 4853</pre>
</body>
</html>