[LINK] Graduated Piracy Response Coming To Australia, Or Else

[Frank O'Connor]

Correct ... only the copyright holder has rights of suit, and rights to remedy.

There is NO obligation on any third party to enforce those rights for the copyright holder.

What AFACT and the music and movie industries are trying to do is to either get the ISP's to pay for enforcing their copyright, or get our politicians to make changes in copyright law so that the Australian government (read the Australian taxpayer) pays to enforce their copyright. 

Either alternative I'd suggest is not tenable.

They own the copyright, they can pay to enforce it. Otherwise, the government should socialise the profits of said companies ("No problem, we'll do what you want for 30% of your gross take to cover our costs"), which I'd guess is not something the copyright holders would come at.

Else (Heavens to Betsy!) they could examine their business model and make the requisite changes to make it harder to pirate product, or make their consumers pay (as they have done on each and every change in copyright medium for the last 150 years) so that the middleman (rather than the actual artist) doesn't lose out. (Of course the artists are told it's all for their benefit ... "Just sign here, and here, and here, Old Son .. we'll handle it from here." ... but very few artists )

I'm planning to publish some e-books over the next couple of years ... and I'll do it cheaply and conveniently for my readers on the Net, I'll do it without embedding any copy protection, I'll ask for a reasonable payment (probably under $5), and I'll encourage people to 'pass it on'. I figure that's a reasonable business model for me, and I don't figure to make money out of same for time immemorial. I''ll take about 50-70% of the proceeds of each transaction and the publishers and service providers will take the rest.

						Regards,
---
On 12/07/2011, at 9:53 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:

> At 08:53 PM 12/07/2011, David Boxall wrote:
>>>> "This is simply an invitation to ISPs to engage with us to 
>> fulfil their obligations."
>>>> ...
>> 
>> When did perpetuating other people's privileges become an ISP's obligation?
> 
> What AFACT doesn't seem to want to understand is that copyright is 
> enforceable by the rights holder and NO ONE ELSE. If they want to 
> take legal action against the copyright breaker, then go for it. No 
> one is stopping them from going to the courts and filing charges. But 
> it is NOT the "obligation" of an ISP or a phone company or any other 
> common carrier to police what their customers do on the network. Correct?
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
> business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
> 
> Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
> sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
> ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
> 
> _ __________________ _
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link