[LINK] Will Conroy's filter rescue AFACT?

[Frank O'Connor]

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 
this country
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 ...

					Regards,

At 9:21 AM +1100 27/2/11, Kim Holburn wrote:
>http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/will-conroys-filter-rescue-afact/20110225-1b85u.html
>>  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 
>>three-strikes rule.
>  >
>>  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.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Kim Holburn
>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
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link