<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/06/2015 6:41 PM, Paul Wilkins
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAMmROTJifMN1dn+ayNGe9+3yOEDb=gN7A3dobpJ_i6fnNnRi_Q@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>
          <div>
            <div>Paul,<br>
            </div>
            The point is, per 115A(2) which requires reasonableness,
            115A(5e) which requires a proportionate response, and
            115A(5i) which requires 115A to consider other remedies
            available under the rest of the Copyright Act, the question
            is, is it reasonable to switch off your access routers and
            go home? In my opinion, the only reasonable reasonable and
            proportionate remedy available is to terminate the user's
            service.<br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    The point is - this has nothing to do with a user. There is no-one
    to terminate. This is about international websites.<br>
    <br>
    115A(2) requires *you* to determine what you believe are reasonable
    steps to comply with the order to block the website from *all* your
    users, after you have received the injunction. The court order will
    not make that determination for you. Sure, you could shrug and write
    back to the court "there is nothing I could reasonably do to comply
    with this order to block, so as a consequence the site is still wide
    open for all my customers". Or, you could block the IP address,
    knock off several thousand other innocent sites, and let the press
    ridicule at the courts make a statement. Or, you could fiddle with
    the DNS entry. You might think of something else. You will get to
    choose what you think is reasonable, but if it isn't effective you
    may need to explain why what you did was or was not reasonable
    attempt to comply.<br>
    <br>
    115A(5e) requires *the court* to determine if the initial request
    for blocking is a proportional response. If you've already received
    the injunction papers to block the site, the court will have clearly
    made that determination already. You don't get to make that call.
    Same with 115A(5i) etc - if you've already got the injunction papers
    in your hand asking you to block the site, all those factors have
    already been evaluated by the court.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAMmROTJifMN1dn+ayNGe9+3yOEDb=gN7A3dobpJ_i6fnNnRi_Q@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          (I am not a lawyer. This is not legal opinion)<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        Paul Wilkins<br>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On 23 June 2015 at 17:59, Paul Brooks <span
            dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au"
              target="_blank">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
                <div>On 23/06/2015 5:09 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div>
                      <div>I haven't read the Copyright Act 1968 in its
                        entirety (and perhaps I should), but it looks
                        like (ianal), legal remedies are as:<br>
                        <br>
                        <div style="margin-left:40px">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: </div>
                        <p style="margin-left:40px">                    
                          (a)  an order requiring the carriage service
                          provider to take reasonable steps to disable
                          access to an online location outside
                          Australia;</p>
                        <div style="margin-left:40px"> </div>
                        <p style="margin-left:40px">                    
                          (b)  an order requiring the carriage service
                          provider to terminate a specified account.</p>
                      </div>
                      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.<br>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
              </span> Huh? <br>
              This has nothing to do with infringing accounts or
              terminating users.<br>
              <br>
              A copyright holder goes to the courts and says 'I found
              this website on these pages is hosting my movie that I
              hold the copyright for. The site clearly has its primary
              purpose to facilitate infringement of copyright. Please
              issue an injunction to all the ISPs to have the site
              blocked under Section 115A of the Copyright Act please'.<br>
              <br>
              You and all our colleagues on and off this list get the
              court injunction requiring you to block access to
              that/those websites for all your customers. No user
              identified, no account to terminate.<br>
              <br>
              They may be preparing the submission to the courts to have
              100/200/300+ sites blocked as we speak.<br>
              <br>
              If your only capability to comply to block access to those
              hundreds of sites is to switch off your access routers and
              go home, it might be an issue to ponder on and plan for a
              better alternative.<span class="HOEnZb"><font
                  color="#888888"><br>
                  <br>
                  P.</font></span><span class=""><br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
                    <div class="gmail_quote">On 23 June 2015 at 15:05,
                      Will Dowling <span dir="ltr"><<a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:will@autodeist.com"
                          target="_blank">will@autodeist.com</a>></span>
                      wrote:<br>
                      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
                        0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
                        solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>> 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.<br>
                          <br>
                        </span>I’m more than certain the rights holders
                        will be lining up to tell you what they think is
                        “reasonable”.<br>
                        <br>
                        Which brings us back to who has the burden for
                        establishing it… likely it will be the courts
                        until precedent is set.<br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Will Dowling<br>
                        <br>
                        E: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:will@autodeist.com"
                          target="_blank">will@autodeist.com</a><br>
                        <div>
                          <div>_______________________________________________<br>
                            AusNOG mailing list<br>
                            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"
                              target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
                            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
                              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                    </div>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                  <fieldset></fieldset>
                  <br>
                  <pre>_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
              </span></div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>