[AusNOG] Copyright Negotiations with ISPs

Mon Feb 16 11:20:29 EST 2015

One thing I don't like is that you even have to ask them what the
membership fees are... they don't have it on their website.

My question is:  Are they in these negotiations on behalf of the industry
or just their membership?

If it is the industry - which it seems it is, unless what they agree is
only for their members, then they should be talking to the entire industry
about what they are negotiating.

Maybe it is time for 'The Small to Medium ISP Association' or something...
represent the unrepresented.... but then again, would anyway pay for it.

...Skeeve

--

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>

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:06 AM, 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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150216/4b315591/attachment.html>