<p dir="ltr">I disagree that metadata retention is a done deal - the AGD has tried four times over the last eight years to get it up, and has not yet succeeded. This is at least partially because people DO stand against it. If we don't voice our opposition, then yes, it will get up, and the end result is pre-determined. That isn't a world I wish to live in.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The same goes here. The government told the related industries to come up with a voluntary code. Thus far, the propsal looks very heavily weighted in favour of the "rights owners", at the detriment to the other involved parties (ISPs). The Comms Alliance isn't widely representative of the industry (it may carry customer numbers behind it, but not operator numbers).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Frankly, I hope this phase fails, that the Comms Alliance and rights holders fail to agree, and the government has to step in and create something. Then at least there is a chance that if what they come up with is as stupid as some of their other attempted legistlation (metadata, anyone), they can be shown to be clueless and put in a real position where toxic legislation results in political fallout.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If the Comms Alliance continues to bend over for the rights-holders, there can be only one winner - and that winner won't be consumers or carriers.</p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Not sure this sort of response is
helpful in the long run Rod. The facts are that the Government has
done this deal as part of the US/AUS Free trade agreement. No
amount of wishing it away will make it not so. Even though I
might agree that it's not our problem and it's expense we cant
afford. The deal is done. The horse has bolted. <br>
<br>
All we can do now is try and make suggestions to make it easier
for us to manage the process. But this like the meta data
retention will happen. It's already been agreed to. We just need
to come to terms with that and move on. <br>
<br>
Matt.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/02/2015 10:56 am, Rod Veith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">My
2 page response has been sent to the Comms Alliance. I find
abhorrent the whole premise that ISPs have a role to play in
copyright enforcement prior to the issuing of court orders!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Willing
to share and hope to swap responses off list.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Summary
of response: Totally against the scheme.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Rod<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext" lang="EN-US"> AusNOG
[<a href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Rod Veith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 23 February 2015 8:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Paul Brooks'; <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated
warnings for pirates"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thank
you for the links.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">We
are preparing our reply and will send it to the alliance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Our
ISP business has not been approached about this scheme
either before or after this draft was produced by the
Communications Alliance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Rod
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext" lang="EN-US"> AusNOG [<a href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Brooks<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 23 February 2015 8:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated
warnings for pirates"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Noel -
assume there isn't anyone from CommsAlliance here to address
the concerns - reps from the comms industry on this working
group were Baker and McKenzie, Telstra, Optus, M2, iiNet,
IPStar, Verizon and VHA.<br>
Many of these concerns were probably raised during the
working committee meetings that brought this about - but
many of them would have been howled down by the content
industry.<br>
The group that put this together had a deadline to put out a
draft code that both sides could at least live with - if
they don't meet the deadline with a draft that the service
providers AND the content industry can live with, then the
Government was going to 'create' one themselves and impose
it whether you liked it or not - and most people figured
that would be worse. They still might.<br>
<br>
I agree, these are all really good comments. Now everyone
needs to get them in to Comms Alliance before the end of the
public coment period. Commenting in here is like a
discussion at the urinal in the pub - satisfying, but
doesn't get the vibe in to the people that are making the
decisions.<br>
<br>
This thing is now in a legislated process, in accordance
with the Telco Act:<br>
* 1 month public comment period to Comms Alliance<br>
* Comms Alliance committee consider all the public comments
and make changes as determined by the working committee<br>
* if the changes agreed by the committee are big enough
there might need to be another public comment period - or
they might just reach out to people the comment to run them
through the changes<br>
* Comms Alliance presents the draft code to ACMA<br>
* ACMA open up a 2 month (might be 1 month) public comment
period<br>
* ACMA consider comments and suggestions made to ACMA<br>
* ACMA make it a mandatory code applicable to every carriage
service provider<br>
<br>
Even if its 'I don't agree with this, and I'm not a member
of Comms Alliance, and Comms Alliance shouldn't be claiming
to represent the industry when it only represents its
members and didn't ask AusNOG', write your comment in to
Comms Alliance.<br>
Even better, suggest specific changes to words and
processes. These are required to be addressed by the
committee, to a level that a comment like 'this is screwed
up I don't agree' won't be.<br>
<br>
So please please please - everyone, on behalf of your
service provider of employment, or as an interested
individual, follow the public comment instructions at <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment" target="_blank">http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment</a>
and let the Committee know what changes you would like to
see in and out of this draft code:<u></u><u></u></p>
<h4>Want to submit a comment on a draft document?<u></u><u></u></h4>
<p>You can use the <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment/submit-comments" target="_blank">Submit
Comments form</a> to submit your comments via email or go
to the <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/contact_us" target="_blank">Contact Us</a> webpage to obtain other
contact methods such as by post or fax.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All submissions received will be made
publically available on the Communications Alliance website
unless the submitter requests otherwise.<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<h3>Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code<u></u><u></u></h3>
<p><a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf" target="_blank">DR
C653:2015 (709 KB)</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>The Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code creates a
Copyright Notice Scheme through which residential fixed
internet users who are alleged to have infringed copyright
online will receive an escalating series of infringement
notices designed to change their behaviour and steer them
toward lawful sources of content. The Scheme has a strong
emphasis on public education and does not contain explicit
sanctions against internet users, but does provide for a
‘facilitated preliminary discovery’ process through which
ISPs can assist Rights Holders who may decide to take
legal action against persistent infringers.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Information on the Working Committee which revised the
Code, including the Terms of Reference can be found <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Activities/committees-and-groups/wc66" target="_blank">here.</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><strong>PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES AT 5.00 P.M. ON (<a href="http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/time" target="_blank">AEDT</a>)
23 March 2015.</strong><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Please note that all submissions received will be made
publically available on the Communications Alliance
website unless the submitter requests otherwise.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%"></div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Even if you just cut'n'paste the comments made in here in
the past day.<br>
<br>
All comments are required to be considered by the committee,
and the more people that provide comments, the more they
know the level of feeling behind it.<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/02/2015 2:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Absolutely agree, their intention might be well meaning,
but there is too many holes in it, perhaps someone from
comms alliance here would like to address these concerns?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>On 22/02/2015 12:37, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010ff 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It did seem a little one-sided
there. It's all well and fine to say the process on the
Rights Holder side must be certified, but there was no
documented recourse if it should be found that the
Rights Holder was telling furfies. For example, AFAIAC,
should the Rights Holder be found to be making false
allegations, the ISP should have the right to blacklist
them and never deal with them again. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seems like the Account Holder needs
some recourse BEFORE the Final Notice, also. For
example, if the Account Holder is a household with 4
teenagers, AND lots of visiting friends, well, they
have no way to tell who may have done it, so there
needs to be a way to come back to the ISP and say
'Sorry, this was NOT me, nor was it someone I can
identify, so please cancel this notice'.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't like the requirement for
the ISP to send out the Final Notices via registered
post, without there being some way to recoup that
cost. Automated emails are all well and fine. But
once you have to have someone print, fold, and stuff
a letter, walk to the post office, get a tracking
number, and then come back and enter that number
into a system, that notice just cost you $30 to
send. And then later when someone needs to audit
that process because there was a failure in the
system (The accounts junior that walked to the post
office mixed up two of the tracking numbers), that
notice then just cost you another $200+ in developer
time.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seems to be putting a LOT of cost
and administrative overhead on the ISP's, for NO
benefit to ISP's or the community. All the benefit
is on the Rights Holders. Perhaps a $10-20 per
processed infringement notice incoming from the
Rights Holders would be a good cost offset for the
effort involved?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>AusNOG mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
/* Matt Perkins
Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
Office 1300 133 299 <a href="mailto:matt@spectrum.com.au" target="_blank">matt@spectrum.com.au</a>
Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at <a href="http://pgp.mit.edu" target="_blank">http://pgp.mit.edu</a>
*/
</pre>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></div>