[AusNOG] So are iiNet condoning illegal piracy?

[Geordie Guy]

There's an awful lot wrong with this.  Basically all of it.  And regardless
of whether you're ready as a network operator to stand up and keep your
AusNOG activities where they currently are (alternating between posting
weird traceroutes to the list and asking if anyone near Skipton, VIC has a
spare line card because yours just smoked up) rather than going where the
copyright lobby wants them (posting to the list each day about how to keep
the cost of issuing compliance notices down, asking the list where the best
sparkling water is for the lawyers in the lobby, you know basically
everything other than operating a network), then you need to know what's
wrong with this and why.

Maybe you don't care.  Maybe as a network operator you are completely down
with your duties migrating to meeting SLA's set by the Australian Screen
Association for turning around threatening letters, but you need to know
the facts. I run AS132710 and I'm angry as hell, but I know the facts and
choose to be both angry and informed.


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Mike Ryan - Brass Razoo Group <
brassrazoo1 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> By opposing legislation that outlaws criminal activity (intellectual
> property theft)
>

Literally all of this is rubbish.

1)  There is no legislation to outlaw piracy and none is proposed.
 "Intellectual property theft" is a bunch of silly words put together by
silly people and are good for nothing other than light amusement.  The
Australian Copyright Act only criminalises copyright infringement if it is
accompanied by secondary factors such as commercial scale, circumventing a
technological protection measure, advertising infringing works, or a bunch
of other conditions.  Piracy is not illegal in Australia, nor will it
become so, because the content industry and the government realise that the
entertainment corporations creating criminal offences around it (without
the excuse used overseas that there is a local movie and film industry
whose profits are predicated on it), is a bad way to get your way.  This
has been gone over countless times in response to the industry's billowing,
spittle spreading mouthpieces and it's been vacated every time because it's
simply not right.  Thankfully George Brandis' responses to Scott Ludlam in
senate estimates lately about how Australia doesn't have illegality around
individual copyright infringement played his hand further into open misere
than it had ever been, and thankfully stopped me having to refer people to
the Copyright Act, have them read all of it and comprehend it. Because it's
not illegal, and because it can't feasibly be made illegal (without the
industry vilifying consumers), the focus and attention is on ISPs who are
seen to "facilitate" it by the lobbyists merely by providing services to
their end users.  Ya know, what we're all in business for.

are iiNet giving a tacit nod to illegal activities?
>

3)  Not only are the activities not illegal, iiNet is not giving the tacit
nod to them.  This is EXPRESSLY called out in chief regulatory officer
Steve Dalby's blog post, and when iiNet handed Hollywood its fat, white,
wrinkled butt in the High Court, the judge in the case specifically
rejected that iiNet or any other provider has any incentive to give piracy
the nod.  Pirates aren't good service provider customers, they are a threat
to availability in non-SP private networks, pirates use all the available
bandwidth using software which is not designed to co-exist with other
network users and run the profitability of their resource allocation to the
hilt.  You're last in the queue of people to accuse iiNet of thinking
pirates are awesome and profitable, and everyone in the queue in front of
you have been deliberately and specifically shot down in a burst of flames
and a long trail of black smoke by either the people who operate the
networks, or judges of the high court.


> SP's and carriers are not liable for the behaviour of their clients.
>

Yet this is exactly what you are suggesting is the opposite of "giving the
nod to piracy?"


>  iiNet should stick to providing shareholder value and ensuring system
> availability.
>

And you don't do that by acquiescing to a government regime's idea of what
a system is available for, and the availability and reliability of a system
injects right into the guts of earnings per share.  I


> It's called "Rule of Law".
>


Congratulations, your final quip is so wrong it's the exact opposite of
right and you look silly.



> --
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140611/198d39f7/attachment.html>