[LINK] When private cops get out of hand...
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
dassa at dhs.org
Mon Apr 16 21:27:25 EST 2007
link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au wrote:
>> rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>> By-the-by, while Googling dear MIPI, I come across this page:
>>> This is of questionable propriety on the ACCC's behalf: it has MIPI
>>> listed under "courts, tribunals and dispute resolution. MIPI is not
>>> a court, nor a tribunal, and as far as I know has no role in dispute
>> There is more and more of this about ... the blurring of the
>> lines between governance and corporate interests. The "American
>> In case anyone is interested, Exetel has published the
>> latest two-pager they received from MIPI here:
>> You should be able to view it since it is a public forum
>> that allows guests to view only.
>> Exetel staff report that an earlier letter from MIPI was
>> targeting the *user* as the legal object of its desires,
>> i.e. they felt that users were responsible for the copyright
>> breaches they themselves make. This makes legal sense, and
>> of course there are already laws in place that they can use
>> to take action against users who violate the Copyright Act.
>> MIPI is now shifting focus to the ISP, as we know. They want
>> the carriers to do their prosecutory work for them. Exetel
>> replies several times in the their forums that they adhere
>> to the existing laws, and this is all they are bound to do.
Back a few years when my company was providing free hostnames and we had a
few hundred thousand users on our systems I used to get a letter at least
once a week threatening all sorts of legal action over copyrighted material.
Worked with a few firms to get things straightened out a bit, we only
provided DNS and didn't do any hosting except for some friends who weren't
involved in any infringements. We always took complaints seriously and
investigated each one, usually we would discontinue service if the user
didn't respond to our queries to show how they weren't in the wrong with
regard to the complaint, if there was any doubt no action was taken but if a
complaint was proven we would stop our DNS for the hostname fairly quickly.
Took over a year to educate a lot of firms that we weren't responsible and
that stopping the DNS didn't make the content go away. They always pick the
easiest target to hit first. Often without any basis for doing so.
That was certainly one aspect I didn't miss when we went user pays and the
complaints stopped coming in.
I'd have a lot of doubts about the quality of any evidence that may be put
forward to show wrong doing. I've seen too many cases where due diligence
wasn't even thought about.
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
More information about the Link