[LINK] When private cops get out of hand...

[Rick Welykochy]

rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:

> By-the-by, while Googling dear MIPI, I come across this page:
> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/288585/fromItemId/340639
> 
> 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 System".

In case anyone is interested, Exetel has published the latest two-pager
they received from MIPI here:

http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=20549

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.

One posting in the forums pointed out that rather than take on a big
player like Telstra (where most of the fringements would occur) they
may take on a small ISP as a test case. Without the resources or the
legal expertise to fight a prolonged battle all the way to the supreme
court, MIPI could register a precedent setting win.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that according
to existing law, the carrier itself is not responsible for the content
it carries, beyond the stipulations of take-down notices for prohibited
content issued by the ACCC, i.e. an infringing website or newsgroup
must be taken down. Nothing can be done legally without an order
from the courts to restrict what is carried. If child pr0n is carried,
it is the end user where that content winds up that is liable for
prosecution. Similar applies to copyright material that is carried.

cheers
rickw


-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

Windows accelerator: G*m1*m2/r^2
     -- with apologies to John Clear