AFACT: Shape, prevent or playpen, but iiNet did nothing

@Cyber Trekker - whilst I am on your side of the argument and agree that ISPs , short of a direction from a court or similar authority, should not be made responsible for enforcing the wishes copyright holders, I would point out that the primary purpose of copyright is not to prevent the false claiming of creation (the moral right to claim authorship), but rather the granting of a monopoly on the rights to profit from a creative effort to the author, the imperative being to encourage the creative effort for the overall good of the greater community.

Where we've gone astray is in the extension of the copyright period to ridiculous lengths of time, at the behest of large commercial interests.

Where AFACT is going astray is in assuming it can now make other organisations responsible for doing its bidding in the absence of a lawful ruling. It wants to short-cut the time, effort and most importantly the cost of pursuing individual copyright offenders through the established legal process. Of course, their end-game is more likely to be to force the ISPs into a royalty agreement - effectively instituting a tax on Internet users regardless of whether they breach copyright or not.

While I concur with certain points made by you in your comment, Steven and CS, let it be understood that the peculiarity of the modern approach to copyright is just that - in effect, it is a modern viewpoint. Once cannot logically claim the modern viewpoint as the basis of copyright, only insofar as it applies to the modern era. Copyright, therefore, has gone astray in its original purpose and that extensively so. That such would in most instances not be held to be so by the multitude and especially so-termed copyright authorities, of itself means little if anything. The moderns, to utilise a term, know little of the real and abiding origins of the copyright concept and are, therefore, reliant on the false conclusions built around a more modern conception thereof.

I am not interested what government, business and the law say pertaining to this, as they are as much fools as a lot in the general public. In fact, I would dare to say, even more so than the latter. That almost every human on the face of this planet is affected by false belief systems and incorrect histories prevents them from viewing things directly, thereby causing them to view them askance. They, therefore, limit their viewpoint and their argument to the currently accepted belief systems and enforced notions.

It would be true to say, especially in respect to the majority of the people who would read this site, that they would be inclined to disagree with my presentation. After all, they cannot divorce themselves from preconceived notions and their own limited intellectuality. A true thinker goes beyond the common herd and the common herd would generally go against the true thinker. This has been happening throughout human history, but the generality of genus homo of Terra never learn from the mistake. Hence, say to say, the repetition of history. Why is it assumed that the commonly agreed history and conception are absolutely correct? Such a line of thought is absolutist in its approach and its character. Little minds for little people, I would venture to assert with a respectful dignity. More anent this cannot be stated in a poignant consideration, as the prevailing adversity prevents it and I cannot be bothered in wasting my time and energy in a useless pursuit.

Try to deride me all you want, the point is that you are not an all-knowing and infallible god. It will, therefore, always be true that such is indicative of a biased and inferior mentality. As the old saying goes, magna est veritas et prevalebit.

@Steven Very well put; I totally agree on your first point.

@Darknight Infringement comes in many forms, theft is most certainly included. Whether A. or B. it doesn't really matter, in either case someone is having revenue/product stolen from them. Whether it's the right owners, the store owners, creators etc. Both instances infringe on a law of some kind ..

The issue with IINET (+ other ISPs) is simple, whilst they are not themselves directly infringing, they are 'indirectly' (AFACT might say directly) generating revenue off the hard work and investment of others. The oft used comparison between actual physical theft and say, public infrastructure such as roads, is therefore completely off target; e.g. councils/construction companies do not rely on 'criminals' to generate their primary stream of income. Not saying I agree with AFACT's tactics by any means.

With new technology comes new problems.. legal and otherwise.. it's importantusers are informed on these issues and how their use it may adversely affect others (in this case creative industries) instead of just believing they have a right to free sh*t because it is easy to obtain (and stupid sh*t like.. studios, actors, labels, artists etc makes shedloads of money, so don't deserve to be paid).

Traditional revenue models don't work for record and film producers any more, and yes this is an issue for them to resolve, but ultimitely this should be with cooperation from those now generating the majoriy of income from new revenue models (e.g. ISPs).

Yes the days of physical product are over (although vinyl music sales are actually growing) and the game has been turned on its head. But to just dismiss the concept of copyright, along with the laws in place to protect it, is blatantly moronic.. ie @cyber trekker, your 'argument' makes no sense at all.. the whole 'us and them' premise, really reflects on the volatile state of your sanity and overall perception of reality. If you were to go outside, you would likely find yourself surrounded by copyright owners of one type or another. Creatives are everywhere, they are real people and no doubt many are 'poor as a humble vagabond through specious reasoning.' (whatever the f*ck that is supposed to mean!?)

My 2cents