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

[Chad Kelly]

On 6/23/2015 10:47 PM, Robert Hudson wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2015 9:56 pm, "Chad Kelly" <chad at cpkws.com.au 
> <mailto:chad at cpkws.com.au>> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/23/2015 8:51 PM, ausnog-request at lists.ausnog.net 
> <mailto:ausnog-request at lists.ausnog.net> 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.
> >
> > Well funnily enough, most web hosting providers hear in Australia 
> prohibit the hosting of copyrighted material and will remove it from 
> the servers if they find it. Or unless you can prove that you have a 
> licence for it.
> > They have all this stuff outlined in the Terms of Service agreement 
> when a user signs up.
> > The majority of hosting providers have the ability to Terminate 
> accounts quite easily, or they can suspend accounts at a minimum.
>
> Not particularly relevant here, as this law allows rights holders to 
> request access to sites hosted anywhere in the world is blocked - this 
> isn't limited to blocking content hosted in Australia (take-down 
> orders already existed for this).
>
> > Also Geo blocking is considered reasonable, yes I know it does not 
> work that effectively, but as long as it looks like your doing 
> something the courts don't have an issue. Most judges don't have a 
> clue when it comes to IT.
>
> Whether geo-blocking is reasonable is a matter of perspective - but is 
> also irrelevant in this case again. This law is about stopping 
> Australian Internet users from accessing content hosted anywhere in 
> the world.
>
> > As for the VPN argument, that is outside of the ISP and web hosting 
> providers control and so it would be up to the VPN provider to give 
> the courts your details.
>
> It is entirely feasible that a rights holder could convince a judge 
> (who you already noted may well be clueless when it comes to IT) that 
> the primary use case for a particular VPN service is copyright 
> infringement, and to create an order to block access to that VPN service.
>
> > Long story short these laws won't make a difference.
>
> They will make a LOT of difference. These laws are Internet 
> filtering/censorship in the name of protecting the profits of foreign 
> and local rights holders (corporations), with no discernible benefit 
> to the general Australian public (and in fact with demonstrated 
> negative impacts to the general Internet-using population). What a 
> great reason to create new Australian laws.
>
>
But people will still pirate content, the industry would be better off 
focusing on making content available online and at an affordable price.
We have this stupid setup at the moment with distribution deals where 
not all content on NetFlics is available in Australia. Those deals 
should of been dumped  as soon as the Australian market was enterd.
It defeats the purpose of entering the market, as you still need a VPN 
to access the USA version of the site, having an Australian presence was 
meant to make more content available.
Its pointless them investing money in Australia if everyone is going to 
just access the US version due to having more content.
Dump the distribution deals and stop whinging about going broke, after 
all, the film and TV industry will just go more broke trying to fight 
piracy.
You won't be able to stop all VPN providers, its just not practicle.
Anyway I think I am preaching to the converted a bit hear.



-- 
Chad Kelly
Manager
CPK Web Services
web www.cpkws.com.au
phone 03 9013 4853

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150624/734b70dc/attachment.html>