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

Frank O'Connor foconnor at ozemail.com.au
Thu Nov 27 15:46:38 AEDT 2008

Yo Dave,

At 5:43 PM -0800 on 26/11/08 you wrote:
>Oh Frank, you are funny! See, my comment was why was why shouldn't 
>the head of Exetel have his own opinion. Another poster said part of 
>what he said was fact, the other opinion. I'm not entering that 

Ahhh ... good that you didn't enter into it. I suppose it was those 
nasty fairies who typed:

>  >Since when was iiNet off-limits to criticism. Of the 3 or 4 
>worst >ISPs I've used in Australia, they are by far the worst. And 
>why >isn't the point made by Linton valid, at least to some extent?

.... but maybe it was someone or something else who wrote that.

And Linton's 'point' as you put it was that iiNet should have meekly 
caved to the demands of those third parties when they were made - 
like Exetel did. Great precedent there Dave.

So if any pressure group says an ISP should do something, then it 
should be done ... filter the Net, filter their customers, throttle 
it back, lock out various content, censor religious views etc. All 
cool with you?

Yeah ... you would see Linton's view as valid. (Hey, you were the one 
who said so.)

>And maybe you should read Frank. Jan originally asked "What is 
>Exetel doing bad-mouthing iiNet? Sour grapes perhaps?" So is iiNet 
>off-limits to you?

She asked that as an off-side .... that was why it was in brackets. 
Rhetorical question, I'd say.

Nope iiNet's not off limits ... but in the context of this discussion 
(which I pointed out invited comment on the film studios efforts to 
get third parties and taxpayers to plug the various hole sin their 
business models) comment on iiNet or any other ISP wasn't required.

>And oh Frank, if only you knew anything. Playing the man and not the 
>ball. Now, maybe you should stick to the discussion and not show the 
>inadequacies in your arguments by attacking me personally.

Dave, the issues were and and are:
a. To what extent ISP's can be regarded as publishers
b. To what extent ISP's (legally)  can and should police their clientele
c. To what extent third parties like ISP's should be responsible to 
plugging holes in the business models of other industries
d. To what extent those industries should conduct their own policing 
and enforcement if they're not willing to change their business 
... and a number of other issues that proceed from them ...

>I'm not exactly sure what " currying up to the rich and powerful" 
>has to do with questioning the right of the head of Exetel to voice 
>his opinion. Enlighten me.

Just a tendency to back to rich and powerful Dave .... fairly 
uncritical of Microsoft, movie studios and big media interests. 
Lauding bad product and standards. It's a trend I'm looking at Dave.

Never seen anything from you on behalf of the little guy. The putz 
who pays for copyright or digital product and then is denied fair 
use. The putz who has to front up with more moolah every time the 
same copyright material is released on new media.


BTW. Dicky mailer you got there Dave .... Love the way it handles the 
end of line formatting. Yahoo ... gotta love them. Can you turn off 
those grotty end-of-line codes?

More information about the Link mailing list