We’re going to post a more detailed analysis of this shortly. Background: iiNet is in some bad legal action as reported here at ZDNet, and some support for iiNET as reported here at ComputerWorld. One wonders if the dudes going after them don’t have the balls to go after the bigger guys and are hoping to win against someone without the billions behind them to be able to set a legal precedent. (And thereby, law sets the rules for the bigger guys to then comply later). It just smells. I wish iiNet all the best with this and hopefully you kick some arse.
As an aside, iiNET have been open with their anti-filtering stance and cred to them to have put their name and reputation on the line in support of things that are wrong!
(Open disclosure: yes, they are a client of ours but our position would be the same regardless!)
Take out of the threats to the status quo that you can create and you win. Smart business but piss weak balls on these guys to go after the smaller guy to get their result. Pirating has been going for years and while it is wrong, the targets they select for their attacks are wrong but I suppose it’s easier to get some one to do your work for you! Would love to see the figures about how the actors have suffered as a result of this and the poor studios have lost money on it!
Here’s the statement: anyone who has produced something good has made good money!! There is no statistics to prove otherwise. I know you have to protect IP but wake up to yourselves and understand the limitations of what you can so and work within those boundaries.
I hope this iiNet case kicks your butts into 2010 because the same people you go after are the same people that make you money.
Once again, attracted to the potentially voluminous client fees like a cloud of swarming bogong moths smothering a street light, the only winners will be the toffee-nosed legal fraternity.
The argument appears to be: As an ISP, iiNet provides the vehicle for users to download copyright material, and does little or nothing to stop it.
To that proposition, most ordinary people, myself included, would say: Why the bloody hell should they ?
Imagine for instance, running the argument that carmakers should be sued, purely because they provide vehicles that may cause harm to others. While we’re at it, lets throw in knifemakers, stiletto boot makers, umbrella manufacturers, or any other innocent business that provides the ‘vehicle’ through which others may use their product illegally and not as it’s maker intended. Do we also expect that these manufacturers should, therefore, monitor their product’s use to ensure appropriate use is complied with ?
No, we don’t. Why ? Because the argument is utter nonsense. Its bloody stupid. Its a money grab.
The question is, just how long can the toffee noses draw out this nonsensical debate for their well-heeled, paying clients ? As they say – time is money !
BG.
[...] Previous post putting a few questions out there: http://beastorbuddha.com/2008/11/21/supporting-iinet-the-test-case/ [...]
[...] this case a number of times here. What irks me most of all is that they’ve gone after the easier target and the rest of the industry is just sitting back and leaving it to iiNet to defend on their own. [...]