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

Richard Chirgwin rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Sat Nov 26 11:13:13 AEDT 2011

On 26/11/11 10:49 AM, Kim Holburn wrote:
> 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.
The rights holder has to notify these details to the ISP.
> The Copyright Infringement Notice will include details of:
> * The Rights Holder‟s entitlement
> * The copyright work involved
> * The IP address involved
> * The time and date of the alleged infringement
The first notice to the user names the rights holder but not which 
content - heaven knows why.

The second notice to the user includes the content information. It 
seems, in other words, to be geared to escalating the notice to 
"habitual" infringers. Whether it achieves this aim? - Well, that's the 
purpose of a trial, I suppose.
>> "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?
Yes, rights holders are 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?
The figures are dodgy, but don't change the legal position.

It's easy to give the ISPs a kick, but most ISPs lack the resources to 
mount a challenge back against the movie industry. So they're looking 
for a way out. As I remarked separately, this document invites comment, 
so we ought to get active and make the comments.

>> 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

More information about the Link mailing list