[LINK] Roadshow loses appeal

[Ivan Trundle]

On 21/04/2012, at 9:06 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:

> If a water company knows that people are contaminating the water by 
> getting into the pipes, and if the company could do more to secure their 
> pipes but did not, then they could be held to be liable.

In this case, the water company is responsible for the *content* and the delivery mechanism, is it not?

They effectively own the commodity being transported, and bill for its use. 

I could imagine that there are pipes NOT owned by the water company, too.

>  And if the 
> water company's revenue was bolstered by the contamination (in much the 
> same way that, so I'm told, 50% of iiNet traffic was file shares) then 
> their inaction could be shown to be self-interested.

This is of concern, and a good point to make.

iT