Somebody in the thread at some point said: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote: > >> Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> >>> be released in this country movies, but then again, have you ever known >>> a criminal to admit what they are doing is wrong without being caught, >>> have you ever known a spamemr to think what he/she is doing is spamming, >>> its all denials, adn we see right through you :) >> >> I googled on Australia civil criminal copyright and it seems your laws >> are a mixture of civil and criminal liability as I expected, depending >> on what the offense was. There was a change in 2006 that criminalized >> some specific stuff around software copying it seems, but the minor >> noncommercial media copying law appears to remain a civil offense. > > As one who deals with the Federal Police most often in supplying user > details for investigation for prosecution on these matters I can assure > you its more criminal :) Well, one gets prosecuted for civil offenses too. Nice job you got there. >> Even in Australia ;-) you might get into trouble calling people >> "criminal" when nobody found them guilty and it would be a civil offense >> anyway. > > Actually, no, because I have the authority under the telecommunications > act to monitor any data passing through my network, either at direction > of a L.E.A, or because i "suspect" someone is up to no good, I can > guaranteee you, the people that try to do 300G a month are all illegal > p2p'rs, because they are the ones who cry the loudest when somthing does > not work or its going "slow", I and any of my associates look and we can > see what they are doing and know they are comitting offences, so we have > the captured proof, and "truth" is an acceptable defence. There are all sorts of laws in other countries, probably .au too, about what you are allowed to "monitor", especially when it is to do with email. Just a FYI. >>> tier 1 extortionate interconnects, we can pay anywhere up to 30 times >>> what U.S ISPs do per data (they blame it on the loooooooonnnnggggg trans >>> pacific haul), so there will never be such a thing as true unlimited on >>> a survivable business model in this country :) >>> Certainly not in any forseeable future. >> >> Seems we agree greed and bad service from the carriers is the problem. > > Well we had to agree to somthing adventually :) > But I still dont beleive that gives the users the right to treat their > conenction as a 1:1, they are in a shared pool, like all ISP's run, > thats why many ISP's have business grades, which are in fact 1:1, and > should be because they pay for it. If someone is offering a service at a particular bandwidth, I am paying the bills, then of course if I want to max out that service 24/7 I will do so. (Typically my traffic too is silent 90% of the time and bursty the rest, but it's not the point). Whose fault is it they set the contention ratio -- for profit -- too high? Not mine, I paid for the offered service. It's the fault of the ISP not to back up their offer with the right level of investment in equipment, as I said earlier. It's like buying a ticket on an airline that overbooks the airplanes 50 x over each flight, then blaming the irate passengers that keep getting bumped for "wanting to fly". If the bandwidth management policy of the ISP is to throw their largest users to the wolves to reduce the level of service they have to provide -- for profit -- then that really sucks. Whatever moral case you can assemble against unauthorized copying is dwarfed by the immorality of such an ISP policy IMO. Clearly we are on different sides of the fence on this issue. -Andy
