I think it is worth noting that, in Australia, ALL ISPs have data caps.
The fact that iiNet was willing to do a deal to allow unmetered data with Netflix actually shows a diversion from what we are used to down here (that being, ridiculously slow internet speeds, and data caps).
I am in no way in favour of a ‘3 strikes’ rule, nor do I have any reservations that the Australian Liberal government is setting our country back decades in their short time in office. However, this article:
from the Australian Financial Review seems to suggest that the result of the warnings will not be a ban from internet, and that there is a lot to do before anything is implemented (such as getting through a tough Parliament). Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
Although I completely agree with the idea behind this (infringement is not theft), this is not a very transferable comparison.
Money obtains its value by the way in which it is accepted by society i.e. it can be exchanged for goods and services, and has value. There is no value in a copy (especially a digital copy), as it cannot enjoy the same use as the original.
There is, however, some value in a digital copy of a song or movie. I'm not specifically talking about dollar value, but in the use of the original vs the use of the copy. People are able to enjoy the same content and use as the original.
Not a very good comparison in my opinion, and I think this weakens the argument against the ridiculous claims which are made by the MPAA & RIAA.
If the request to hand over the domain was made within the cliam filed in Court, then the Court has every right to dimsiss such a request on the basis that no such remedy is available to Righthaven under law.
HOWEVER...if Righthaven demand the domain in by letter or some other demand on the Defendant, that is an issue between the parties. Parties can negotiate and request anything they like, unless it is not criminally unlawful.
Negotitations and settlements can take place on whatever terms the parties agree, and the Defendant can choose whether or not to accept the 'offer' (term used loosely).
Being a lawyer myself, I think this is just a legal trick as opposed to a stupid concept.
If the term expires in 20 years, it provides an avenue to review the terms of the settlement, and amend the same. basically, it allows for the terms to be reviewed in 20 years time. Something that I would think is necessary.
Although I don't know why that wouldn't just be put in there explicitly. Hmm maybe I am wrong...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Hooter McBus.