ITWire

According to the entire thrust of the AFACT action, my telephony provider should be required to detect this event and deny me service due to this action (with the possibility of the weird 'three strikes' rule coming into play).

This is patently absurd.  How can the carriage provider be liable for the actions of its users?  Is the electricity provider liable for the energy used in hydroponic drug farms?  Is the local council liable if I drive those drugs in my car on suburban roads?

The 'battle' is between the copyright owners and the copyright infringers, but the owners have no desire to tackle the infringers one-by-one, so they look for an easier target with deeper pockets - one who could be seen to 'control' a large group of infringers.

The problem was, they lost the bet - twice now.  The courts have ruled that indeed the ISPs do not 'control' the infringers and at no time authorised their infringing actions.

I leave it to iiNet CEO Michael Malone to provide the final book-end.

"Let's find a middle way. This has wasted two years and hasn't fixed anything," said Mr Malone who said that copying had continued unabated while the court case continued.

So, not only did AFACT choose the wrong target, but by doing so, it effectively diverted resources from more effective strategies.