Telcos volunteer to help police piracy

[Jez]

Australian internet users face an increased risk of prosecution if they pirate movies or music online, with five of Australia's largest ISPs proposing to act as police and report the details of customers who are suspected of abusing copyright...

The Australian ISPs that have agreed to help in policing infringements are Telstra BigPond, Optus, iiNet, iPrimus and Internode.

Full article

Troubling indeed, since I'd regard iiNet and Internode as my only two viable ISPs at the moment.

[Chucky]

Troubling indeed, since I'd regard iiNet and Internode as my only two viable ISPs at the moment.

Whilst my initial thoughts were along the same lines, once you move past the sensationalistic journalism and look at the actual facts, you will see the ISP's are actually trying to help out.

As it stands, court orders are required and you can be sued

As it is proposed, court orders are required, multiple 'heads up letters' are sent out, and if you exceed a limit of 3 or 4 notices in 12 months, you could be sued

Difference between now and the proposal? Additional 3 - 4 heads up letters that don't have to be sent currently.

When in doubt, read the words of actual people in the know:

Simon Hackett: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-re ... 1821055#r9

Steve Dalby: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-re ... 8&p=5#r100 (more posts after that one from steve as well)

Additionally Steve posted multiple replies to the tripe that Renai Posts on Delimiter:

http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/25/isps ... ng-scheme/

http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/25/anti ... al-wolves/

Please read all of Steve Dalby's replies (and Simon Hacketts) and the actual proposal before thinking the ISP has it in for you. They Don't!!! They are actually sticking up for us

Of course, don't forget to read the actual proposal (PDF Format): http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/ ... -Final.pdf

[Artful-dodgeR]

*hugs my unlimited cap on TPG*

[Chucky]

*hugs my unlimited cap on TPG*

If this comes into play, just because TPG do not support it, they will have to play by it (Just as they do now if the court orders them to do something)

[Klas]

Damn, I've been a very happy Internode customer for several years now but this alone is certainly enough to make me jump ship. It's not about piracy, it's about the fact that I don't want copyright lobbyists or "rights holders" dictating the terms of my on-line freedoms.

I'll be following this with great interest indeed...

Edit:

As it is proposed, court orders are required, multiple 'heads up letters' are sent out, and if you exceed a limit of 3 or 4 notices in 12 months, you could be sued

If that's true then effectively there's no "policing" by ISPs going on at all? Title might be misleading. I'm definitely going to read the policy proposal when I get a few minutes... thanks for the link!

[Mekon]

Title might be misleading.

You think?

A more valid title would be "ISPs suggest a process to protect their users".

The knee-jerking going on on Whirlpool and Delimiter is hilarious.

[Otto-matic]

From what I'm reading-

The current system is rights holders get a court order for the ISP to turn over details, then sue whoever turns up.

Under the proposed system, the rights holders notify the ISP of possible infringement. ISP then sends a notice to whoever is the account holder. If it keeps happening, rights holders get a court order for the ISP to turn over details, then sue whoever turns up.

Few extra hoops for the rights holders to jump through before they can sue, so I can see why they are unhappy. Also the initial notice(s) serve as a useful heads up to download some 'filtering' software.

[Jez]

Some good food for thought there Chucky, ty. I'm still a bit wary of anything that smacks of cooperation between ISPs and copyright owners, but will wait and see.

I wonder if the stats mentioned in the article about most users discontinuing infringing behaviour after a warning letter is simply because they downloaded something to anonymise themselves...

[Chucky]

A more valid title would be "ISPs suggest a process to protect their users".

+1 and nicely said!

Jez, the Movie Groups are not going to reply until the results of the AFACT vs iiNet case are sorted. If that case goes in favour of AFACT, consider yourself stuffed. If it goes in favour of iiNet, well AFACT are going to have to seriously think about what the ISP's are proposing.

As per: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/27/afac ... racy-plan/

[cyclobs]

time to pull out a anon proxy

[Chucky]

As posted on Whirlpool:

It would appear this conversation is now moot

However, the Australian Content Industry Group, representing music and film rights content owners including the Australia Recording Industry Association and APRA-AMCOS, yesterday said it would not ratify the plan.

ACIG spokesperson Vanessa Hutley said the proposal did not meet the industry's expectations.']

"ACIG does not think the scheme proposed by the Communications Alliance and its members creates a balanced process and it falls well short of the expectations we had had for an open, balanced and fair solution," Ms Hutley said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/austral ... 6208551936

Not unexpected considering as I say the ISP's were on the side of the users, the movie groups were always going to reject it.

[Klas]

Ars Technica have picked up this story (that's significant international coverage): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... sdeeds.ars

Pirate Party Au summarise the issues within the proposal fairly well: http://pirateparty.org.au/give-no-quarter

"We're not surprised to once again see a proposal with the purpose of giving up customers' personal information on the whims of a dying industry, upon nothing more than an accusation. It's a privacy nightmare.", said Brendan Molloy, Pirate Party Secretary.

[Chucky]

"We're not surprised to once again see a proposal with the purpose of giving up customers' personal information on the whims of a dying industry, upon nothing more than an accusation. It's a privacy nightmare.", said Brendan Molloy, Pirate Party Secretary.

I have read enough of that **** on Whirlpool. It comes from those that do not understand what was proposed. Any information handed out was only after a court order was issued (as is done today).

Never mind, the proposal was rejected. Now or some time real soon now, expect the Government to make a proposal that will have everyone up in arms. As the Government and courts want this issue resolved.

[Klas]

I have read enough of that **** on Whirlpool. It comes from those that do not understand what was proposed. Any information handed out was only after a court order was issued (as is done today).

I don't think so. Under the proposed scheme ISPs will need to keep a database/s to track any customer's notices/warnings and no doubt the particulars of each. This is the personal information being referred to in this case (not name, address etc which you're right, will still need a court order first).

Section 3.6

In the event that an Account Holder is sent one Education Notice and [three]
Warning Notices, the ISP will match the IP address from its scheme database
and then send a Discovery Notice to the Account Holder.

...

the ISP will notify the Rights Holder that the Account Holder has
apparently failed to address the matters set out in the Notices

[Chucky]

The ISP's will keep multiple databases (ie per Rights Holder that has applied, per ISP), they do not share that information with each ISP, nor does that information get sent to the Rights holder without a court order....So again, how is that a breach of privacy, considering an ISP can look up who had what ip on any given date at any given time?

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-re ... &p=12#r240