I think it's fair to say Richard Cobden SC has a complete command of how this works.
During the trial he made the argument iiNet does not own, control, promote or support BitTorrent software; that the film studios have contractual relationships with companies that allow illegal downloads, including BitTorrent, Inc., and despite this there were no warnings on the sites about downloading copyright material.
Any Australian HN readers could explain why Australia (or at least its government) seems to be obsessed with controlling the Internet? Australia seems like a pretty open country otherwise.
Australia uses preferential voting for pretty much all elections. "How to vote" cards are handed out at all polling booths by the parties contesting the election. These how to vote cards indicate how to allocate your preferences to the maximum benefit of the party of your allegiance. About 80% of voters mark their votes per the cards.
This means that a party on the left will allocate it's first few preferences to other parties on the left and a party on the right will allocate it's first few preferences to other parties on the right, unless these parties are extremely radical in which case they usually fall to the bottom few preferences.
Senate representation is proportional so that in a simplified election of 5 seats 20% of the vote wins a seat. Proportional representation combined with preferential voting leads to outcomes where fringe senators are elected with less than 2% of the primary vote.
Australia is an effective two party state where elections are generally won by low margins. Control of each house, particularly the senate, often depends on pandering to the whims of fringe parties who hold the balance of power. This, combined with attempts to frame policy so as to draw fringe voters back to the two major parties, results in government policy which seems out of place in a modern democratic socialist nation.
This is one such policy.
Edit: It's worth mentioning that at present both sides of federal politics are chasing the so called "values voters" and are involved in a pissing match to prove who is the most Christian conservative.
The problem lies in a small number of politicians holding the swing vote in our policy making. Unfortunately one of the main players is "Family First", a conservative Christian political group who are basically trying to impose 'good christian values' on all Australians. So to get a major parties policies through, they do 'deals' with these minor groups, like supporting extreme censorship.
Some things they oppose include abortion, euthenasia, cloning, needle exchange programs for drug users, unfiltered internet pornography...
It saddens me that our current politicians do not see the damage such policies will have in the future. They are trading our future freedom to ensure their current political aspirations are met.
Corruption? I remember hearing that at least one of the Australian states/provinces had massive police corruption that was discovered back in the 80's or so, and many of the people involved still hold positions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
Maybe government corruption is rampant? IIRC in Italy there is a lot of corruption in the government, but people just accept it as a fact of life.
"... Any Australian HN readers could explain why Australia (or at least its government) seems to be obsessed with controlling the Internet? ..."
For the answer to that I think you might want to study the "classics": rhetoric and the Roman Republic ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic You will find all the answers there. Legacy seen through the lens of history has a way of sorting the barbaric from the visionary government.
I agree with this decision. In Australia, although the Federal Court is not the highest court in the land (that's the High Court), it is generally recognized as having particular expertise in IP. Therefore, I think that although the studios will definitely attempt to appeal this, the High Court may well refuse to hear it.
While I agree with the decision, I think that ISPs do make money from piracy - honestly, in practice, what are most of the massive data plans (180GB per month) used for...? I've met a few people who have every game/movie that comes out. They don't actually play or watch them though, I think it's more a collector impulse. http://www.iinet.net.au/broadband/plans.html
The judge's grasp of the issues came as a pleasant surprise to me. He summarizes the entire judgement in para 21:
"In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement."
No necessarily. These people are always 'confident' that they will get their way, but I'm sure all but a very few of them are pragmatic behind closed doors. It's just playing to the media circus; creating an image for the general public.
I dunno. I think this was a fluke in how educated the judge was.
Do you really expect lightning to strike the same place twice? Much less three times? The odds are significantly worse in those two branches, methinks.
[+] [-] sh1mmer|16 years ago|reply
I think people may not quite understand how this works (again).
[+] [-] astrec|16 years ago|reply
I think it's fair to say Richard Cobden SC has a complete command of how this works.
During the trial he made the argument iiNet does not own, control, promote or support BitTorrent software; that the film studios have contractual relationships with companies that allow illegal downloads, including BitTorrent, Inc., and despite this there were no warnings on the sites about downloading copyright material.
[+] [-] JacobAldridge|16 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1098559
[+] [-] MikeCapone|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrec|16 years ago|reply
This means that a party on the left will allocate it's first few preferences to other parties on the left and a party on the right will allocate it's first few preferences to other parties on the right, unless these parties are extremely radical in which case they usually fall to the bottom few preferences.
Senate representation is proportional so that in a simplified election of 5 seats 20% of the vote wins a seat. Proportional representation combined with preferential voting leads to outcomes where fringe senators are elected with less than 2% of the primary vote.
Australia is an effective two party state where elections are generally won by low margins. Control of each house, particularly the senate, often depends on pandering to the whims of fringe parties who hold the balance of power. This, combined with attempts to frame policy so as to draw fringe voters back to the two major parties, results in government policy which seems out of place in a modern democratic socialist nation.
This is one such policy.
Edit: It's worth mentioning that at present both sides of federal politics are chasing the so called "values voters" and are involved in a pissing match to prove who is the most Christian conservative.
[+] [-] esonica|16 years ago|reply
You can read more about this wonderful group here http://www.familyfirst.org.au/Policies.htm
Some things they oppose include abortion, euthenasia, cloning, needle exchange programs for drug users, unfiltered internet pornography...
It saddens me that our current politicians do not see the damage such policies will have in the future. They are trading our future freedom to ensure their current political aspirations are met.
[+] [-] pyre|16 years ago|reply
Maybe government corruption is rampant? IIRC in Italy there is a lot of corruption in the government, but people just accept it as a fact of life.
[+] [-] bootload|16 years ago|reply
For the answer to that I think you might want to study the "classics": rhetoric and the Roman Republic ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic You will find all the answers there. Legacy seen through the lens of history has a way of sorting the barbaric from the visionary government.
[+] [-] 10ren|16 years ago|reply
While I agree with the decision, I think that ISPs do make money from piracy - honestly, in practice, what are most of the massive data plans (180GB per month) used for...? I've met a few people who have every game/movie that comes out. They don't actually play or watch them though, I think it's more a collector impulse. http://www.iinet.net.au/broadband/plans.html
disclaimer iinet is my ISP
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjmc|16 years ago|reply
The judge's grasp of the issues came as a pleasant surprise to me. He summarizes the entire judgement in para 21:
"In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement."
[+] [-] zmimon|16 years ago|reply
Ominous.
[+] [-] pyre|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JacobAldridge|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Groxx|16 years ago|reply
Do you really expect lightning to strike the same place twice? Much less three times? The odds are significantly worse in those two branches, methinks.
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]