repercussions of guilty verdict, page-6

There is no question about it - unauthorised (torrent) downloading of copyrighted files is theft. However I believe IIN's obligations to monitor and control illegal downloads are astoundingly undefined.

In effect, IIN would be enforcing law for only one of all the illegal activities that occur on the internet they provide. The mind boggles to think where their obligations may begin and end and where their priorities should be. Especially when considering banned images and video, trade of prohibited substances, websites containing viruses, illegal spammers, fraud, identity theft and any other illegal activity.

I also suspect that every ISP in the country would have no allocated budget for such enforcement and that this was never included in their business model or product pricing - right or wrong.

The problem with the spectacular evolution of technology over the past 50 years is that evolution of law just doesn't keep up at all.

For this reason I believe it is wrong to retrospectively make ISPs wholly accountable when regulation of the industry is poorly defined and there is little precedent. I am hoping this case kick starts federal politicians to develop appropriate laws and perhaps allocate resources to enforce them.

From an investment point of view, while IIN strikes me as a talented and innovative company, it may not be quite large (or proactive) enough to defend itself against lawyers from big movie companies.

Will be interesting to watch...