Speaker Unknown
Time 2012-01-20 09:00
Conference LCA2012

What is reasonable and fair for ISPs to do?

Iinet acccused of authorising copyright infringement by its users, becausee they didn’t terminate accounts on request. IiNet claimed that they didn’t have enough information to require them to act. As well as safe harbor provisions.

UNSW vs Moorehouse. Photocopier at university library; university was found to be authorising copyright infringement. 3 criteria, all of them met. Book publisher sent its own agents to make copies of its own books at library - where they authorised by the company to make copies? Argument was rejected.

“merely” provides Internet access. “merely”not defined, what does it mean?

Safe harbour - limits ISPs liability if ISPs assist copyright holders.

Result: Each torrant == 1 instance of infringement. Iinet did not authorize copyright infringement. Safe Harbour provisions would apply.

AFACT appealled.

Different reasons for concluding iinet did not authorize copyright infringement.

Safe Harbour provisions would not apply. IiNets policies insufficient.

IiNet response closely followed judges suggestions. AFACT disagreed, high court. Final judgement still expected.

Is sending notices going to prevent infringement.

IiNet model, communications alliance model, AFACT model; for solution

IiNet model, idependant third body obtains address details from ISP and then will contact user. No direct contact from ISP or content creater to user. Content creater never gets users detail. Lots of unaddressed issues with this model.

Communications alliancce model. Independant body. More constraints and checks. 3 checks, and ISP gives details to content creater, content creater can sue. Also has issues. ISPs may not act in best interests of users. Onus of proof? Costs?

AFACT model. iiNet should have responded to their notices. No evidence required. No right of appeal. Costs borne by ISPs. These costs will be passed on to consumers.

What is standard of evidence required? Is IP address sufficient. People accusing you are the ones who judge your appeal. Might be penalizing people who are not doing the right thing. E.g. Account shared with 10 people, only one is infringing, others will get punished.

Different distribution models. ITunes, Netaflix, YouTube, etc. Independant artists. If AFACT is successful, then many of these models may become problematic.

Are judges taking into account not just the commercial aspects, but innovators and users? Was quite a bit of evidence that put these arguments forward. Judges interpret the law, it is the politicians that set the law. The government has taken a step back and says we want industry to deal with it. This is unfortunate. Are judges biased in how they interpret the the circumstances? Different judges come up with different ideas on what is reasonable or not. In order to fix this, need to tighten up the law, remove need for interpretation.

Consumer voice is missing from this. Vote with wallet. Lobby. Write to member of parliament. Make submission to royal commision. This is a consumer issue. All of these things do make a difference.

What is copyright owners break law in finding out who is infringing? Depends on which law?

Implications for tor relays? Don’t know what is going through system. Same with anybody with a wireless access point.