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

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Sat Nov 26 10:49:16 AEDT 2011

On 2011/Nov/26, at 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.

Just the one?  How about: where is there anything about proof that the Rights' Holders actually hold the rights?

> So, OK, a notice is received. 
> Then what is the account holder supposed to do to satisfy the rights 
> holder? All it says is:

The first notice doesn't even tell what "the account" is supposed to have infringed or possibly when or what IP.  

> "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.

I see that following notices accrue to the mug punter despite being from different Rights' Holders.  How does that make sense really?  Are "Rights' Holders" a cartel?

> Needs more work and some involvement by consumers. I think they've 
> just made a very complicated system (copyright assertion) even more 
> complicated.

The Australian Content Industry Group (ACIG), which represents a coalition of 
Rights Holders, believes that the retail value lost to their industry sector through 
online copyright infringement via file-sharing by Australian consumers in 2010 
was A$900m and growing rapidly. 

Hmmmm.  Really?  Proof?

> 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

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 

More information about the Link mailing list