[LINK] Will Conroy's filter rescue AFACT?
francisoconnor3 at bigpond.com
Sun Feb 27 14:41:27 AEDT 2011
Linking together WAY too many threads IMHO.
Conroy wanted filters because:
a) A Christian lobby crucial to electoral matters wanted same
b) It made it look like the government was 'doing something' for
concerned middle class parents
c) He is probably a moralistic wowser in technocrat disguise
He doesn't much like iiNet and Michale Malone because:
a) They said filtering wouldn't work and were quite vocal about it
b) With a couple of other large ISP's, they said filters would be
detrimental to network efficiency and effectiveness
c) They contradicted what he said
He supports AFACT because:
a) They have connections with some rather big media organisations in
b) Celebrities (read actors) support AFACT
c) As a consummate politician he wants to remain on the right side
(both literally and figuratively) of both
How a journalist would merge all these facts/opinions is illustrated
in the SMH article.
I agree that the door hasn't closed on the AFACT and copyright
litigation fiasco, and that it will continue until they adjust their
business model to the new networked realities. I also agree that
filtering will be back on the agenda ... but probably not as soon as
some people think (I'd say three or four years down the track). I
doubt there is any connection between the two, and in future doubt
that filtering will be effective or desirable as a copyright
violation dissuader - especially if 'the industry' gets its act into
gear by providing timely, freely available, online product at
reasonable prices whilst using encryption and other validation
'technologies' to protect data files and data streams.
When that happens and they are coining more money hand-over-fist from
the 'new medium' the industry suits will be patting themselves on the
back and wondering why they didn't get into this new distribution
medium earlier. (In much the same way as they did with radio, TV,
VCR's, CD's, DVD's and other distribution media after initially
painting them as the 'end of the industry' media - the music and film
industries never ride the technological wave, they tend to paddle
along after it has gone by and new markets have revealed themselves.)
Just my 2 cents worth ...
At 9:21 AM +1100 27/2/11, Kim Holburn wrote:
>> Will Conroy's filter rescue AFACT?
>> February 25, 2011
>> Will mandatory filtering reshape the copyright war after the iiNet win?
>> The Australian arm of the copyright police has once again been
>>defeated in court. The Australian Federation Against Copyright
>>Theft has spent two years plenty of cash dragging Australian ISP
>>iiNet through the courts in an effort to hold it responsible for
>>illegal file-sharing undertaken by its customers. This week the
>>court dismissed AFACT's appeal against an earlier decision which
>>found iiNet was not liable for its customers downloading habits.
>> Is AFACT going to throw in the towel and go back to busting shonky
>>DVD sellers at the market? Not likely. AFACT has 28 days to lodge a
>>High Court appeal which, going on past form, I think we can expect
>>AFACT to do.
>> By now the copyright police must realise that they're not going to
>>win this war in the courts alone. Dragging ISPs, BitTorrent search
>>engines and even end users through the courts has failed to stamp
>>out illegal file-sharing. You might hear threats that the copyright
>>police will start raiding lounge rooms, but former AFACT head
>>Adrianne Pecotic is on record as saying its only interested in
>>chasing those who release pirate copies of movies, not people
>>sitting at home downloading them. US efforts to prosecute
>>individuals turned into a PR nightmare which AFACT surely doesnt
>>want to see repeated in Australia.
>> Frustrated in the courts, the copyright police may call in favors
>>from draconian lawmakers. Conroy's mandatory internet filter and
>>the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement could both
>>serve as major weapons in the war on piracy. The harshest elements
>>of the three-strikes rule have apparently been scratched from the
>>ACTA, but considering the secrecy surrounding the treaty you can't
>>take anything for granted. Some analysts even see the fine print of
>>this week's verdict as laying the foundations for an Australian
>> Meanwhile the Australian mandatory filtering debate is far from
>>dead, Conroy is just biding his time. He recently confirmed that
>>filtering is still on the table. He also said he was awaiting the
>>outcome of the iiNet trial and the government's Convergence Review
>>before deciding what action to take in regards to online piracy.
>> It's no coincidence that iiNet is one of Conroy's most vocal
>>opponents. The timing of the iiNet case was also no coincidence - a
>>surprise attack designed to strike fear into Australian ISPs as
>>Conroy demanded support for filtering. AFACT hoped to hand iiNet's
>>head to Conroy on a silver platter and then claim its pieces of
>>silver in the form of an expanded mandatory filter to cover
>>file-sharing. ISPs would be forced to bow to Conroy's content
>>filtering demands to escape the piracy lawsuits.
>> iiNet may have won this battle, but this cat-and-mouse war is far
>>from over. If anything this week's decision could increase industry
>>pressure for an expanded mandatory filtering regime to block
>>illegal file-sharing. Expect the fighting to be fierce this year.
>IT Network & Security Consultant
>T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753
>mailto:kim at holburn.net aim://kimholburn
>skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link