[LINK] Comms Alliance's proposed anti-copyright measures

[Richard Chirgwin]

Jan - keep in mind that it's a discussion paper. The Comms Alliance 
hasn't yet posted anything I can see where comments can be received, 
which is something that I'll follow up with them. But they are inviting 
comment.

TorrentFreak got one thing wrong: AFACT has already signed up with the 
proposal, so there isn't any need to await their response.

RC

On 26/11/11 8:47 AM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 07:59 AM 26/11/2011, Kim Holburn wrote:
>
>> There' a review of it here:
>>
>> https://torrentfreak.com/aussie-isps-propose-anti-filesharing-warning-notice-scheme-111125
> Interesting review with nothing in it much about how content users
> feel about it. They obviously weren't consulted. This isn't a 2-way
> problem. It's at least a 3-way, if you include consumers, and 4 if
> you include regulators. I guess humans aren't able to step back and
> see that most situations involve more than 2 points of view.
>
> There seems to be a missing aspect. So, OK, a notice is received.
> Then what is the account holder supposed to do to satisfy the rights
> holder? All it says is:
> "
> that failure to act on the Education Notice may result in further
> action by the Rights Holder;
> "
> If I were an account holder with a teenager ripping down whatever,
> probably the most I would do is tell the kid to stop. Is that enough?
> Does it satisfy the rights holder in any way? I very much doubt it.
> Just telling the user about content access options and that they may
> want to get legal advice doesn't educate anyone on what is wanted
> from the account holder who wouldn't have a clue of what the ISP or
> the rights holder wants them to do. Are they supposed to destroy
> copies? Write to the rights holder and 'confess'? What?
>
> This is what happens when not all parties are present to review a
> procedure. Major steps are missed. Unless I missed something in the Proposal?
>
> There is also the issue of how the rights holders are getting the IP
> addresses. Of course, CommsAlliance is silent on that.
>
> There is also the little matter of dynamic addresses. Since that is
> the information that triggers a process (presumably acquired by the
> rights holder through some means, since the ISPs aren't watching on
> their behalf), the data about effectiveness will be questionable
> UNLESS the ISPs are watching repeat offenders appearing on the notice list.
>
> Needs more work and some involvement by consumers. I think they've
> just made a very complicated system (copyright assertion) even more
> complicated.
>
> Jan
>
>
>
>> On 2011/Nov/25, at 1:00 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>>
>>> Here (PDF):
>>>
>> http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/32293/Copyright-Industry-Scheme-Proposal-Final.pdf
>>> Haven't read it yet so not ready to comment ...
>
> 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
>