Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship

[drogon]

Governments (at least the French and Australian) seem to think the ISP is a good solution

simply because hosts can be located everywhere while ISP can be controlled (coerced?) by the government.

 

This kind of stupid law is opening a real can of worms...

 

Aussies: Want to "block" access to some sites

French: Want to stop illegal downloading

 

I think I will continue to improve my "illegal IT set of skills" -> money to be made if governments start being so dumb.

 

I am glad I am not French or Aussie

[CTO]

Why do you want to download illegal things?

[drogon]

Because I really don't want to pay for the thousands of JAv movies I have.

I don't want to give $ to watch silly movies that I deleted after I watched them once (I of course buy movies that I like and which are not blockbusters -> encourage creativity).

 

I download Asian movies which I can't buy here

-> all my korean, Chinese, Japanese movies which are otherwise not available.

 

I download "not anymore for sale" movies, anime, old games which are in abandonware etc...

 

I also don't like to have to buy a game a second time if I lost my CD key and so on.

 

Loads of things which are not even considered "illegal" these days.

 

 

[shygye]

I don't totally disagree - however both should be held responsible. If the internet had insisted from the beginning that those who deliver also are also responsible the industry would have grown with filtering in place.

 

You are wrong. The ISP most closely resembles the postal service. It would be like the postal service opening all your mail to see if it offends Auntie.

[drogon]

I spoke with a few Scandinavians.

 

I didn't know that Norway already has a kind of "cybernet wall"...(of course there is a huge difference in cost between implenting this in Norway and in Australia).

 

I also discovered that Sprint, Warner and a third ISP in the USA blocked the access of all their users to a "pedo website" -> in fact the whole usenet.

 

Damn, I am using usenet for exchanging military photos...

 

Interestingly, some studies jsut came out in France and they all agree that a "wall/filter system" is both dangerous, costly and not efficient.

 

. First, this is going to cost a lot

. Some ways to "block" "illegal" websites can be dangerous for the network

. It is technically very easy to pass around the current systems which can be implemented (at least for someone who is not technologically retarded)

. Criminals will not be affected by this measure and will just go more underground

etc...

 

So, norway, USA, France, Australia? which country is next?

[CTO]

Shyguy - not a bad description - I don't entirely disagree

[CTO]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/iinet-sued-for-allowing-piracy/2008/11/20/1226770617457.html

 

Film companies sue iiNet 'for allowing piracy'

 

*

* Email

* Printer friendly version

* Normal font

* Large font

* Saved

 

Asher Moses

November 20, 2008 - 2:45PM

Page 1 of 2 | Single page

Advertisement

 

The Australian film and television industry has launched a major legal action against one of Australia's largest internet service providers for allegedly allowing its users to download pirated movies and TV shows.

 

The action against iiNet was filed in the Federal Court today by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network.

 

Mark White, iiNet's chief operating officer, said the company did not support piracy in any form but it could not disconnect customers just because the movie industry claimed they engaged in illegal downloading.

 

Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), said the action followed a five-month investigation by the industry.

 

"We identified thousands of infringements of copyright by iiNet's customers and we provided iiNet with about 18 separate notices of those infringements and, unfortunately, iiNet did not do anything to address that copyright infringement," she said.

 

Pecotic said she would not rule out further action against other internet providers. But she was not interested in targeting individual downloaders at this stage.

 

The companies are seeking a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent networks. They want an order forcing iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network.

 

"I would expect, yes, we would go on to claim damages," Pecotic said.

 

White said it was up to law enforcement and the courts to decide whether people were guilty of illegal downloading.

 

"If these people have done something wrong then the authorities can act on it but really it's inappropriate for us to act on an allegation," he said.

 

Chris Chard, managing director of Roadshow Entertainment, said that, as broadband speeds and internet penetration increased, more and more people were turning to piracy.

 

"Village employs over 5000 Australians. We're active in the cinema business, in film distribution, in DVD distribution and we invest in film production, and piracy has the potential to significantly erode all of those businesses," he said.

 

The action follows months of wrangling between the movie and music industries and ISPs over the lengths to which internet providers need to go to prevent illegal file sharing on their networks. The industry wants ISPs to agree to cut off services for those who repeatedly infringe copyright.

 

However, internet providers have argued that the courts already provide adequate remedies for copyright holders and they should not be forced to police their users.

 

"This is a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia," said Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association.

 

"It will test the effect of the safe harbour provisions that were introduced with the US free trade agreement, which provides immunity for ISPs in certain circumstances such as transmission, hosting, caching and referencing activities."

 

Coroneos said the IIA board will shortly convene to develop a response on the legal action against iiNet.

 

But while the movie industry has now stepped up its aggression, the music industry has yet to take legal action against any internet providers over the issue.

 

"The Australian music industry has consistently maintained that it would prefer to negotiate a code of conduct with ISPs on this issue," said Sabiene Heindl, general manager of the recording industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI).

 

Michael Speck, who between 2004 and 2006 ran the music industry's landmark case against KaZaA as the head of MIPI, said he believed legal precedents already established and the emergence of filtering technologies meant iiNet would lose the case.

 

After leading the music industry to victory against KaZaA, Speck joined forces with one of the file sharing program's key proponents, Kevin Bermeister, to invent filtering technology designed to stamp out illegal file sharing.

 

"Once it becomes apparent to everyone that the ISP's most significant traffic is illicit or that particular customers are significant infringing hubs then there can be no doubt that the ISP has an obligation to act," said Speck.

 

The case will be back before the court on December 17.