[AusNOG] Copyright Negotiations with ISPs

Mon Feb 16 11:11:47 EST 2015

http://www.commsalliance.com.au/about-us/membership/current-members

Regards
Alexander

Alexander Neilson
Neilson Productions Limited

alexander at neilson.net.nz
021 329 681

On 16 February 2015 at 13:06, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker <
Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com> wrote:

>  Who are the  members of
>
> Communications Alliance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Skeeve
> Stevens
> *Sent:* Monday, 16 February 2015 10:49 AM
> *To:* AusNOG Mailing List
> *Subject:* [AusNOG] Copyright Negotiations with ISPs
>
>
>
> Hi Ausnog,
>
>
>
> Included below is an article from todays Commsday about the negotiations
> regarding copyright enforcement, who will be spared costs, etc.
>
>
>
> I am concerned that as an industry we don't know what the Communications
> Alliance is negotiating for on our behalf, and what they will and won't
> agree to - especially in responsibility, liability and costs.
>
>
>
> The negotiations are closed-door and I am nervous that we're going to end
> up with some politically negotiated burden that will cost ISPs a
> significant amount of money... especially Small ISPs, the area I am most
> passionate about.
>
>
>
> Is any Ausnogger involved in this process who can let us know what is
> going on?
>
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ========COMMSDAY 16 FEB 2015============
>
>
>
> *Key roadblocks remain for copyright code as deadline looms*
>
>
>
>
>
> ISPs and copyright holders are locked in a series of urgent meetings,
> rushing to finish a draft industry code to combat content piracy – with an
> effective deadline looming of 20 February, this coming Friday, to conclude
> negotiations.
>
>
>
> But while the private discussions have sent good progress on many
> operational aspects of the code, the two sides are still struggling to find
> common ground on two key areas of dissent: who should bear the costs of the
> proposed scheme, and whether ISPs should themselves be obliged to prosecute
> sanctions against copyright infringers.
>
>
>
> In the dying weeks of last year, communications minister Malcolm Turnbull
> and Attorney-general George Brandis called on ISPs and rights holders to
> collaborate on a new industry copyright code.
>
>
>
> Such a code, they said, should provide a means to warn users found
> illegally downloading; inform them of the possible consequences; and
> publicize alternative, affordable and legitimate means of downloading the
> desired material. Following a set number of warnings, it should also
> provide rights owners a path to identify – and prosecute civil action
> against – serial infringers.
>
>
>
> Turnbull and Brandis set a deadline of 8 April for both sides to agree on
> the code. Working back from there, the parties need to work in a 30-day
> period for public comment plus additional time to examine all submissions
> and make any changes to the original draft. The board of industry body
> Communications Alliance would also need to sign of on the release of a
> draft code for comment in the first place. The upshot: ISPs have set 20
> February as the latest possible date that a draft should be publicly
> released.
>
>
>
> Negotiations between rights holders and the telco sector on copyright
> have, in recent history, ranged from chilly to abortive – particularly
> around the time several years ago that a collection of Hollywood studios
> tried unsuccessfully to sue iiNet for copyright infringements by its users.
> Nevertheless, through the current series of private meetings, CommsDay
> understands that good progress has been made on several basic operational
> aspects of the code: everything from how warning notices might look, to the
> workflow from infringement detection onto allegations and notifications,
> and how the notices themselves might be sent out.
>
>
>
> However, there are two key areas, which remain divisive. The first is the
> perennially vexed issue of who should wear the costs for implementing the
> scheme. Turnbull has said it’s “reasonable to expect that the bulk of the
> costs would be borne by the rights holders,” given they have the most to
> gain financially from a reduction in piracy. But the exact numbers on any
> cost split are proving difficult to hammer out – and there are still voices
> in the debate for solutions along the entire spectrum of possible
> arrangements, even up to ISPs wearing most of the costs themselves.
>
>
>
> The second stumbling block is perhaps more surprising: behind closed
> doors, there’s still dispute as to whether the code should include
> provision for ISPs to level sanctions against their own users for copyright
> infringement, such as redirection or throttling. Turnbull and Brandis
> mentioned no such steps in their letter to industry, merely expecting the
> code to “[ensure that] ISPs take reasonable steps (including the
> development of an education and warning notice scheme) to deter online
> copy-right infringement on their network” and “include a process for
> facilitated discovery to assist rights holders in taking direct copyright
> infringement action against a subscriber after an agreed number of notices.”
>
>
>
> Indeed, ISPs have in the past expressed severe reservations around
> punishing their subscribers directly for alleged copyright infringement on
> the say-so of rights holders. It’s no great stretch to infer that the
> renewed push for direct ISP sanctions has come from the rights holders’
> side of the negotiating table.
>
>
>
> At this stage, it’s unclear whether the two sides will be able to reach
> agreement before the looming deadline. It’s not uncommon, particularly
> under time pressure, for parties to find a compromise on a single issue
> that then cascades into broader agreement: a ‘key log’ that enables them to
> clear the whole jam.
>
>
>
> But their alternatives are limited. Turnbull and Brandis have said that,
> should there be no code by the final 8 April deadline, the government will
> lay down arrangements either via an industry code prescribed by the
> Attorney-general under the Copyright Act, or an industry standard
> prescribed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority at the
> direction of the comms minister. Failure to agree on a code would
> essentially mean taking a gamble on which side of the debate the government
> might come down.
>
>
>
> Petroc Wilton
>
>
>
> ========
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy
>
> Email: skeeve at theispguy.com ; Twitter: @TheISPGuy
> <https://twitter.com/TheISPGuy>
>
> Blog: TheISPGuy.com <http://theispguy.com/> ; Facebook: TheISPGuy
> <https://www.facebook.com/theispguy>
>
> Linkedin: /in/skeeve <http://www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360:
> Profile <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150216/ae9ed7a0/attachment.html>