[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans

rene rene.lk at libertus.net
Thu Dec 17 16:23:08 AEDT 2009


On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:44:53 GMT, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> Irene writes,
[...]
>> it's highly unlikely that copyright infringement has anything
>> whatsoever to do with the govt's mandatory censorship/blocking
>> 'plan'.. All indications to date are the government's intentions
>> are plainly censorship of material/information that is
>> controversial .. Irene
>
> Thanks for your opinion, Irene.
>
> Do you think however this may be taking a somewhat blinkered and
> narrow strictly legalistic viewpoint regarding the proposed mandatory
> blocking?

Maybe, but I don't really think so...

> For example, if AFACT win their case, then they WILL issue legal
> threats to all local ISPs if they don't block Pirate Bay etc, & one
> would expect most/all ISPs to comply within one heartbeat. What ISP
> wants legal costs for the sake of public access to locations
> completely un-related to them?

Yes, but it's all well and good for AFACT to claim they will send threats 
to ISPs aiming to make them block the Pirate Bay etc, but as I understand 
it, despite AFACT's claims, not all content available via Pirate Bay is 
material that infringes copyright. And I gather that's part of the reason 
that a Norwegian court recently declined to rule that one of Norway's 
largest ISPs, Telenor, must block its customers from accessing The Pirate 
Bay - because ISPs may have to do an evaluation on whether an Internet page 
or service shall be blocked or not, an evaluation [in terms of copyright 
breach] normally assigned to the authorities/courts.
http://www.thelocal.se/23130/20091107/

I agree with you that it's quite likely some, perhaps many, AU ISPs would 
decide to block it completely.

However, it's quite another thing for the Federal Government to require 
ISPs to do so: given under existing censorship law ACMA is not allowed to 
add entire domains to their blacklist just because some pages on the domain 
allegedly contain "prohibited material". And the govt appears to have made 
clear they intend to require blocking of specific URLs, not entire domains. 

So, if the current, or a future government, decides to mandate ISP blocking 
of alleged copyright infringing material - how exactly would they do that. 
Would they decide to require ISPs to block the whole of Pirate Bay, 
notwithstanding it also provides access to files that do not infringe 
copyright, or would it require receipt of written allegations by the 
copyright holder/AFACT/whoever about particular links or files. If the 
latter, would there be any means of The Pirate Bay, or any other site or 
user, of disputing the allegation (as there is under existing AU copyright 
law in relation to notices sent to ISPs alleging infringing activities by 
their users).

Imo, it's a lot more simple as a govt policy matter to require blocking of 
URLs that have been Refused Classification by an Australian govt entity, 
than it is to write legislation specifying requirements about blocking 
alleged copyright infringing material, and that's basically why I don't 
think the govt's current policy has anything to do with copyright. Even if 
it does, as I indicated before, they'd have to introduce legislative 
amendments into Parliament completely different from the ones they've said 
they intend to introduce in 2010 Autumn sittings.

> Then, with ISP blocking practices firmly in place, how long before
> other groups join a chorus asking 'we block film sites, and NOT
> kiddie p0rn?!?'

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying there, but whatever, I do 
think that once blocking infrastructure is in place, scope creep in 
relation to the breadth of the blacklist is inevitable (I just don't see 
how that could be applied to alleged copyright infringing material).

> Given their stated intentions our Gov would thus look rather silly,
> true?

Sorry, what stated intentions? 

Regards
Irene




More information about the Link mailing list