[AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"

Sun Feb 22 13:27:30 EST 2015

Interestingly I couldn’t see on a quick reading anything dealing with if the reports from the rights holders themselves are bogus or vexatious, thereby putting end users in bad standing and costing ISPs money. I’d love to see some kind of recourse for knowingly making false allegations or knowingly alleging violation without standing. There is in fact the implied assumption throughout that the alleged rights violation actually occurred, just not necessary by the account holder personally. Surely it should be emphasizing that the violation allegation is just an unproven allegation at that point and that it may not have taken place at all?

Also interesting that the TIO is specifically excluded from the scheme.

Finally – what’s the bet that the “education” page that the notices have to point at will basically be free advertising for a select group of rights holders/distributors? I wonder if CC content will even get a mention in the “education” documentation.

Nathanael Bettridge
Prodigy Communications Pty Ltd
Mobile: +61 (0)4 1048 0170
Office: +61 (0)2 8214 8920
Fax:    +61 (0)2 9427 4203
Email:  nathanael at prodigy.com.au<mailto:nathanael at prodigy.com.au>
Web:    www.prodigy.com.au<http://www.prodigy.com.au/>

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Noel Butler
Sent: Sunday, 22 February 2015 12:17
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"

I pretty much agree with everything said here, however, in my skimming, did I or did I not read the only end user dispute can occur after they have final notice? what dropkick came up with that? anyone accused of anything has a right of dispute there and then, if they want to dispute and have wiped a 1st or 2nd warning, it is there right to do so at that time.

I think it also needs to be made extremely clear that "all ISP's" should be replaced by all comms alliance members - which are a negligible number compared to overall alleged 600 or so ISP's, have you 500 customers, or 500,000, your input and choice is as equal as any other.

The fact it specifically excludes wireless forms also places it into the joke box.

I dont recall every ISP being asked by comms alliance for input, or even if they agree, maybe thats what they are doing now? in that case, the response is GAGF, your draft  has a  looooong way to go, its got more holes in it that a pallet of swiss cheese.

On 22/02/2015 07:33, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
So, the draft code is here:

http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf

A couple of questions.

- How does this affect businesses, companies, etc which has many users behind their connection.  Universities/Schools, Internet Cafes, corporate internet, public wifi, etc - which may or may not have the ability or detect what their users are doing.

What will be the penalties of businesses who can't identify the abuser?  Will a company be taken down because of a user?

Based on the definitions an 'Account Holder' is a natural person on Residential fixed internet account'.  Does does mean businesses (of any size) as end users are exempt?

Will a family be taken down because of a childs actions? Is everybody affected by the actions of one/few?

What if the account holder ceases to be a customer of 'that' ISP?  With the trend of short term accounts, a user could move between an ISP every month at little cost... so as long as they rotate every month or two, this process is moot?

----Specific Questions----

3.9.2 - This seems like a VERY administratively costly method.  Why not just email?  Pop-Ups is VERY hard technically to do and potentially requires intercepting of communications.  Registered mail is VERY expensive in bulk and may end up costing a LOT of money.

3.10.3 - Why is the account holder paying? What if they can't afford to pay it?  I'd like to see the circumstances on which it can be waived? and how the panel will pay for the costs of evaluating the work involved.

3.10.8 - Are you suggesting that the panel has the power to ask ISPs to bypass privacy legislation?

3.10.10 - How will the panel handle people who have been hacked (virus, wifi, etc etc) and there defence is simply "We didn't do it" regardless of wether their connection actually did or not?

3.11 - What is ISPs don't? Or if they lose the information through systems failure, hacking, or mistake?

3.12.7 - Is the ISP required to be involved in the request? Who will pay for this?

3.12.10 - So you are saying that this is a paper tiger and accomplishes nothing but a bunch of emails and potential costs for ISPs?

4.1.3 - Equal? Why? Why are ISPs being forced to pay for the policing of this?  What mechanism will ISPs be forced to pay for it?  How much will panel members be paid for this? This could end up in hundreds of thousands of requests and be more than a full-time job.  How will it handle thousands of queries from account holders?

In the Process flow.3 - Match IPA to Service.  If an ISP does not track this information, are they able to ignore all requests?

If this is all so important... then why isn't the Comms Alliance building and hosting a platform to facilitate this process, paying for lawyers and so on?

There are a LOT of other things in this draft, but I think overall it is massively faulted and based on a bad foundation that ISPs are responsible at all for what their users are doing.  It shifts an admin burden to the ISPs that has cost implications which are unknown and could be very significant - if not business affecting - to smaller players.

If the ISPs of Australia do not fight back against this, many many small players (and bigger ones too) could be crippled by this process which the Comms Alliance has agreed to.

...Skeeve

--

Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy

Email: skeeve at theispguy.com<mailto: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 Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Peter Tonoli <peter at medstv.unimelb.edu.au<mailto:peter at medstv.unimelb.edu.au>> wrote:

Just to let you know, from the headline of this email, the whole ISP community has agreed to this.. ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates

Draft copyright infringement code published.

Australian internet service providers have agreed to implement a graduated warning scheme for users engaged in online copyright infringement, as part of a draft industry code issued today.

The Communications Alliance, the ISP representative body, today unveiled the draft code in order to meet the Government's April deadline for an agreed industry plan for self-regulation.

The federal government late last year warned ISPs and rights holders that it would enforce its own code for tackling online copyright infringement if the industry could not agree on one.

The ISP body published a draft version of the code today [ pdf] . It will apply only to fixed-line connections, and will see a series of escalated warnings issued to those suspected of downloading content such as films and TV shows without paying.

But the ISPs and rights holders are yet reach agreement on who will fund the scheme - the main reason similar talks broke down in 2012 - as well as how many notices will be sent during the first 18 months of the code's operation.

From: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/400747,isps-agree-to-graduated-warning-notices-for-pirates.aspx#ixzz3SFklq8dz
--

Peter Tonoli < peter at medstv.unimelb.edu.au<mailto:peter at medstv.unimelb.edu.au> > +61-3-9231-2399<tel:%2B61-3-9231-2399>

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________

AusNOG mailing list

AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto: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/20150222/329f24e4/attachment-0001.html>