are you not descendants of a prison colony YEA lets put them back in there cages

thats what Hollystupid has done to Australians

I have also used the “Smith & Wesson” analogy and argued about highways full of get-away cars. Unfortunately, such comparisons break down when companies like iiNet and TPB fail to act as common carriers.

A common carrier would not pry into the usage of their network at all so that they maintain plausible deniability. However, in TPB case and now again in the iiNet case, the prosecutors simply show how the companies arbitrarily police their network as it suits their purpose. For example, TPB would take down warez if users complained about viruses. Now we hear how iiNet established ToS that allowed them to ban users without a court order. It’s like Kazaa claiming they couldn’t control their network and then pushing a forced SW update to all their users.

Going back to the S&W analogy, imagine if S&W refused to sell guns to gang members but happily provided arms to postal workers. Then suppose a clerk shoots up a post office. S&W gets hauled into court and tries to claim they can’t control what customers do with their guns. No. Sorry. S&W lost the right to make that claim when they demonstrated they COULD and DID exercise judgment but chose not to in some cases.

Likewise, TPB and iiNet want to claim “safe harbor” as “common carriers” that are not responsible for the actions of their users. At the same time TPB and iiNet actually do police their users except when it would benefit the RIAA/MPAA.

These companies tie their own noose if they do any policing at all and still try to claim “safe harbor”. This is why iiNet will lose this case.