iiNet v AFACT: Internet filtering raised in Court

2600 router??? hahahaha!

lol the 2600 router!!?? What would an ISP be doing with an SMB router? How exactly are they supposed to put their entire customers traffic through it lol!

Why not? and Is it the right thing to do by the actual owner?

It is obvious that Michael Malone (purely based on this article and others similar) is simply unwilling to support a blacklist his reasons for this are his own. I suggest that they are for one of three reasons. 1. Malone believes that the internet should be accessible to all, irrespective of the content that the site delivers, be it child pornography, illegal downloads or IT news content, and that iinet supports everyone's ability to be able to choose the content they download freely. 2. Commercial reasons that iinet will lose money by restricting access to sites, such as the Pirate Bay, because customers will choose less reputable ISPs to access illegal content. 3. iinet welcomes the downloads from these sites, as iinet requires the amount of content downloaded across its network to continue to be commercially viable, and a threat to the type of content that is download especially one with such a high percentage (believed to be conservatively 70% of all downloaded content, see for example http://www.ipoque.com/resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2007) of the overall traffic volumes is too risky to allow anyone to mandate either blocking or shaping of the traffic to these sites.
I am not for one second suggesting that Mr. Malone should do anything other than reject the calls to block illegal traffic downloads, as to the iinet shareholders he is doing the right thing. The question is simple, is he doing the right thing by the owners of the content? This I think is the whole crux of the discussion, I don’t believe that the ISP should be held accountable for the policing of the internet, however if an owner of copyrighted material can provide evidence of this material being transported to an account holder on the ISP’s network that a penalty of this theft should occur. In my opinion this penalty should be the disconnection of the service, potentially a fine which is payable to a body such as SoundExchange or a new equivalent however everyone that suffers a penalty should have their details registered with a national (potentially international) body so that there activities are more closely reviewed for a period of time.
I realise that this will impact on potentially innocent people eg those at home and their children download content, but I ask should you allow your kids to access illegal material, why should the parents not be held accountable for their children, after all they raised them to act that way; Hotspot providers and other multi tenanted internet connections, however that is more easily controlled, with address filters which are incredibly easy to access and managed, now cost next to nothing and are almost compulsory now for all IT environments.
I suppose I simply believe that the company/person that owns the product should have the ability to be able to control who and for how much the product is sold for. If the owner decides to charge to much that simple principles of demand and supply will control the price, if it is simply overpriced as all the leachers will complain, don’t buy it and listen to it on the radio or watch it on TV. The problem at the moment is that the owners cannot control anything, because the distribution of the product is so easy and the theft of the product so simple, that people believe that it is the norm to download for free and there are no consequences for their theft. I ask if someone hacked into Coca-Cola and downloaded the recipe for Coke, then made it available on the internet for the whole connected world to view for free, was caught, convicted, fined and imprisoned; would anyone react to this sentence as if it was harsh? How different is this in comparison to the copying and distributing of music/movies/software etc.

AFACT bloody idiots

AFACT should pull their lip over their heads and swallow.

a... Cisco 2600?

jebus, what century are these people living in? I'd barely trust a 2600 to handle the traffic INSIDE MY HOUSE.

Blocking Pirate Bat

I think that if you can effectively remove 95% of people from downloading copyrightable material by removing the ability to do it easily, that will make AFACT happy.

Of course people can use VPN tunnels to do this, however relies on the point at the other end, 1. having enough ports to be able to have that number of VPNs running through it (which requires cash investment on a larger scale, not something that most people/companies will do), 2. means that the IP address of both ends of the tunnel can be tracked and more effectively blocked or tracked, this will lead to a great and more effective prosecution rate, again which AFACT or bodies like this will like.

So why not block the lower skill leveled downloaded, that way if you want to do it, you still can, but it will require considerably more effort.