[LINK] More about iiNet suit - legal opinion on their side it seems

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 05:21:16AM -0800, David Goldstein wrote:
> Here we go again... Frank misrepresenting what I said. I said I'm not
> entering the discussion of whether the head of Exetel was correct in
> what he said. Others made comment on that.
>
> And I didn't say he was right. I said he has a valid point of view.

actually, he doesn't have a valid point of view. his argument was that
iinet brought the legal action upon themselves because they didn't
buckle in to unreasonable and illegal demands that could see them liable
for breach of privacy or breach of contract suits.

that's a reprehensible point of view, not a valid one.

iinet's responses to unproven, unsubstantiated allegations of copyright
infringement is correct. they refer it to the police(*). it's not up to
iinet to act as judge, jury, and executioner. it's up to the police to
investigate and up to the courts to determine whether the accusation is
proven and to decide what action should be taken.




but then, since you're a single-issue nutter who believes that child
pornography is everywhere and that no abuse of power is too much if it's
done in the name of preventing CP, you're unlikely to even attempt to
see reason on this or any other censorship-related issue.

that is, unless you're just another fascist opportunist who sees child
porn as a convenient excuse to hoodwink the public into accepting
draconian censorship.





(*) and even that's morally and ethically wrong. the copyright
industries should never have been allowed to get away with externalising
the cost of enforcing their copyrights. copyright should have remained a
civil issue, not a criminal one.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>