[AusNOG] Australian senate passes controversial anti-piracy, website-blocking laws

[Paul Wilkins]

I haven't read the Copyright Act 1968 in its entirety (and perhaps I
should), but it looks like (ianal), legal remedies are as:

116AG       (3)  For an infringement of copyright that occurs in the course
of the carrying out of a Category A activity, the relief that a court may
grant against a carriage service provider is limited to one or more of the
following orders:

                     (a)  an order requiring the carriage service provider
to take reasonable steps to disable access to an online location outside
Australia;

                     (b)  an order requiring the carriage service provider
to terminate a specified account.
I doubt on the strength of that, courts will go further than orders to
terminate specific accounts. What's a bit sneaky, is the courts may rely on
data retention records in identifying infringing accounts.

(I'm not a lawyer. This is not expert opinion)

Paul Wilkins

On 23 June 2015 at 15:05, Will Dowling <will at autodeist.com> wrote:

> > However, if *you* are the first test case, how do you plan to show to
> the court what you interpreted as reasonable, and how you tried to use
> reasonable means? The court order won't tell you what 'reasonable' might
> mean, or what measures might be considered unreasonable. The content
> organisation that asked for the injunction certainly won't tell you.
>
> I’m more than certain the rights holders will be lining up to tell you
> what they think is “reasonable”.
>
> Which brings us back to who has the burden for establishing it… likely it
> will be the courts until precedent is set.
>
>
> Will Dowling
>
> E: will at autodeist.com
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150623/5426fe9d/attachment.html>