The ongoing legal battle between iiNet and AFACT over the enforcement of AFACT’s copyright infringement notices is awaiting for verdict to be delivered in January. However, I have stumbled across an interesting comment in regards to this by the poster “netizen” in the comments of the following article:
|IIA to Hold Legal “Boot Camp” for ISPs on Copyright Case – Comments|
I don’t hold a passport I have no international obligations to honour. I am concerned that my communications with others are going to find their way into the public domain. I have no trusted relationship with AFACT as it does not honour foundation Australian principles of equity or transparency.
I purchase my movies, and they are offered for sale, not license by proprietors’. The receipts clearly define the relationship. If I choose the convert and use the content in a more practical method it is a private matter, the position I have to allow some other person or entity to know anything beyond the scope of my lawful purchase is intrusive and unlawful.
If when I am out, I choose to communicate with a file server using a protocol I have deemed fit for purpose, so that I can use my lawfully purchased content it should not be subjected to surveillance or control. In fact AFACT must be constrained from having monitoring relationship as I have not established a relationship with their association, nor would I. So the attempt to enforce this relationship on any Australian is unconstitutional and probably unlawful.
My ISP is required respect my right to choose who I enter into a relationship with. I expect iiNET to respect that the packet’s travelling are indeed telecommunication, and no corporation or association has the right to impede or inhibit my right to communicate freely with others. I also argue that my choice to store content lawfully purchased in any format I choose. I also argue that my operating system already insures that only one copy of the file is accessible at anytime, whilst some fragments have higher time to live this is not copyright infringement.
While I do not necessarily agree with the poster’s assertion that he/she has no international obligations – it is an interesting side point that if you used a protocol such as BitTorrent (or any other) to make your own files remotely available to yourself, would not an organisation like AFACT need to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the files were made available with the INTENT of public consumption? If I make my own personal software library available on the internet for my own access when I am away from home, and someone stumbles upon their existence, and makes use of that access – how would AFACT (or anyone) prove that I intended to make those files available to anyone other than myself?
If I was stupid enough not to password secure that access – that does not prove intent. In any way. Interesting.