Latest UK Moves Against Copyright Breaches

[flak]

Let me put it more bluntly.

Why shouldn't Exetel 'null route' a site such as Pirate Bay which exists solely to provide copyright protected material to thieves?

I guess it comes down to your motivation, is it legal or moral?

Reading some of the coverage of the iiNet v AFACT case, the following comment would seem to remove any legal motivation (if it is true, but it's on the internet so it must be true):

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

Like the US laws, Australian copyright law makes ISPs eligible for the safe harbour provisions if they "adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the accounts of repeat infringers".

Since Exetel forwards the infringement notices and blocks access until they are acknowledged, Exetel would seem safe from prosecution (based on my extremely limited layperson's understanding of the law and it's application.

That leaves moral.

Very few people enjoy having someone else's morals forced upon them.

Personally, although I don't use Pirate Bay, if it was banned I would consider leaving Exetel simply because I believe it is not Exetel's place to decide what I can and cannot do with my net connection. We have enough trouble policing the police.

Of course, Exetel management is free to run their company as they see fit (within legal and regulatory bounds), just like I am free to move my custom elsewhere.

[ForumAdmin]

because I believe it is not Exetel's place to decide what I can and cannot do with my net connection.

The provision of service is premised on the service not being used for any "illegal purposes".

If a site is only, or substantially, set up for the purposes of infringing the legal rights of legitimate parties then, de facto I would have thought, that it should not be made available and such an action is covered under the terms of providing the service.

Ignoring any current 'real' example what do you believe is the situation in such a set of circumstances?

[Dazzled]

FA, it's good that this discussion has come back to law, not morals. You and your customers must not breach the law, no matter how artificially nonsensical "intellectual property" law has become. The terms also properly include an agreement to use the service lawfully.

Your difficulties will begin in earnest if ISPs decide to arbitrate for any given site. You can bet ISPs will be wrong in some respect, and liable to action, whatever they do. Without examining downloads, you don't even know what customers' traffic is. There is nothing downloaded that can't be proxied or encrypted or split into fragments or disguised, not even VoIP phone calls.

Perhaps the music moguls could develop something analogue, as vinyl was, and stop whining for the impossible.

[ForumAdmin]

FA, it's good that this discussion has come back to law, not morals

A life lived without morality and ethics is not a life at all.

To pretend that a commercial enterprise can be robbed with impunity because it suits an individual is the end of any reasonable society.

[flak]

because I believe it is not Exetel's place to decide what I can and cannot do with my net connection.

The provision of service is premised on the service not being used for any "illegal purposes".

If a site is only, or substantially, set up for the purposes of infringing the legal rights of legitimate parties then, de facto I would have thought, that it should not be made available and such an action is covered under the terms of providing the service.

Ignoring any current 'real' example what do you believe is the situation in such a set of circumstances?

Before ignoring your 'real' example, it is not illegal to visit Pirate Bay, it is not illegal to search for copyrighted material on Pirate Bay, it is not illegal to download a torrent file from Pirate Bay. It is only when the torrent is added to a torrent client and the sharing commences that an offence has been committed. Even then, is it an offence to share a partial file? Or Is it only an offence once the file is complete?

Extending your argument, what percentage of BitTorrent traffic is alleged to be unauthorised copyrighted material? Something like 90% (guessing here). Will you also be blocking access to the uTorrent and Vuze downloads sites? Will you be blocking access to the P2P sub-forum on Whirlpool?

Similar to the Federal Government's web filtering experiment, the goalposts will be constantly moved, but what will drive this movement? The personal judgement of Exetel's management? A blacklist managed by a third party? Will the list be open to lobbying and influence from the copyright holders and other stakeholders?

I appreciate Exetel's innovation in their space and their forward thinking, but I think the proposal to block selected sites wholly (or predominantly) dedicated to Piracy is biting off more than they can chew at the moment.

May I ask what is driving the suggestion? Is it a desire to be ahead of the game if a precedent is set in the iiNet case? Is it legal advice? Is it personal?

[ForumAdmin]

Edmund Bourke once said:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I am as far from being a good man as it is possible to be in most senses of the word "good".

I do understand that participating in 'evil' is not what I wish to do and I have tried to avoid doing that all of my life.

[JasonM]

There will always be some sort of workaround to it- proxying being the most difficult to defeat.
The only 'solution' will be for the enforcers to 'enforce' the law, but then, where do they start?
Chop the head off, go after those putting the content out there to begin with?

Null routing the pirate bay will do nothing except cost Exetel money (i.e. the inevitable P2P users moving away, those moving in protest, and the associated complaints), those who really should have it blocked will just go elsewhere or find other methods to access it (proxies, or move the downloading operation to another server, and use FTP to transfer them back to their Exetel connection)

[flak]

Edmund Bourke once said:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I am as far from being a good man as it is possible to be in most senses of the word "good".

I do understand that participating in 'evil' is not what I wish to do and I have tried to avoid doing that all of my life.

Providing a carriage service which facilitates evil is not an evil act in itself. Can a phone provider be villified for providing the means for a bomb threat, prank call or a mobile phone call which remotely detonates an explosive device?

On the other hand, whilst most protagonists in Orwell novels may have started with the best of intentions, to protect people from themselves and others, how did things turn out?

Also, given the repeated use of the term "nanny state" on John Linton's blog, I would have thought Exetel would shy away from becoming the nanny ISP.

[Dazzled]

To pretend that a commercial enterprise can be robbed with impunity because it suits an individual is the end of any reasonable society.

FA, It's not music, but I have had my original, new designs and methods copied on several occasions by commercial enterprises. Sometimes exactly. It wasn't robbery, it was only an annoying breach of my legal privilege. In the end, all you can do is calm down and feel flattered and get on with doing better. Your legal advisers may say otherwise, but this is how progress occurs. For most of history it has been normal. Few of the copyists can keep up for long anyway. I doubt youths on Pirate Bay do much long term damage to the music firms - certainly the sales are holding up.

[JamesR]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/159653,da ... ation.aspx

[Munka]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/159653,da ... ation.aspx

What a farce, an army of 60 programmers?? Thats just scary, silly.

[ForumAdmin]

Providing a carriage service which facilitates evil is not an evil act in itself. Can a phone provider be villified for providing the means for a bomb threat, prank call or a mobile phone call which remotely detonates an explosive device?

On the other hand, whilst most protagonists in Orwell novels may have started with the best of intentions, to protect people from themselves and others, how did things turn out?

Also, given the repeated use of the term "nanny state" on John Linton's blog, I would have thought Exetel would shy away from becoming the nanny ISP.

Perhaps it would be better to quote a far, far lesser man than Bourke.

How about:

"Principles only mean anything if you adhere to them when it is inconvenient to you personally"

[ForumAdmin]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/159653,da ... ation.aspx

What a farce, an army of 60 programmers?? That's just scary, silly.

I'm not sure what is actually more scary.

That a company has so many programmers or that the CEO (who probably hasn't written a line of code for a decade) thinks that none of them are a better programmer than he is.

[flak]

"Principles only mean anything if you adhere to them when it is inconvenient to you personally"

Looking at it pragmatically, how much good has Exetel (and before it Swiftel in its early days) done, eg:
* reducing pricing models in the market, excess GBs firstly $6 when the standard was $50<=>$150, then $4, then $3, now $1.50,
* enviromental donations
* expanded product range, ADSL2, HSPA, web SMS, fax, etc
* employment, improved living standard and educational endowments in Sri Lanka.

All of these things have been funded in part by the illegal activities of your customers.

Are you a better person if the sum of your actions is positive;
or if you forgo a lot of positives for the sake of fighting someone else's fight as it is the "right" thing to do, and let's face it, do the record and music companies need or deserve your help.

[ForumAdmin]

It is too deeply philosophical for me to consider such difficult concepts....and I am aware that the 'greater good' concept has been used to justify imperialism in its worst manifestations as well as the development of Nazi Germany among many other examples.

Perhaps it is more sensible to obey the laws as they relate to the operations of commercial companies and take whatever continuing action is required to maintain the ability of the company to continue to operate.