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

Mon Feb 23 12:50:37 EST 2015

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.

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).

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.

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.
 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.

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.

Matt.

On 23/02/2015 10:56 am, Rod Veith wrote:

 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!

Willing to share and hope to swap responses off list.

Summary of response: Totally against the scheme.

Rod

*From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
<ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] *On Behalf Of *Rod Veith
*Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 8:50 AM
*To:* 'Paul Brooks'; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
*Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"

Thank you for the links.

We are preparing our reply and will send it to the alliance.

Our ISP business has not been approached about this scheme either before or
after this draft was produced by the Communications Alliance.

Rod

*From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
<ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Brooks
*Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 8:14 AM
*To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
*Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"

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.
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.
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.

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.

This thing is now in a legislated process, in accordance with the Telco Act:
* 1 month public comment period to Comms Alliance
* Comms Alliance committee consider all the public comments and make
changes as determined by the working committee
* 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
* Comms Alliance presents the draft code to ACMA
* ACMA open up a 2 month (might be 1 month) public comment period
* ACMA consider comments and suggestions made to ACMA
* ACMA make it a mandatory code applicable to every carriage service
provider

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.
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.

So please please please - everyone,  on behalf of your service provider of
employment, or as an interested individual, follow the public comment
instructions at http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment
and let the Committee know what changes you would like to see in and out of
this draft code:
Want to submit a comment on a draft document?

You can use the Submit Comments form
<http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment/submit-comments>
to submit your comments via email or go to the Contact Us
<http://www.commsalliance.com.au/contact_us> webpage to obtain other
contact methods such as by post or fax.

All submissions received will be made publically available on the
Communications Alliance website unless the submitter requests otherwise.

Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code

DR C653:2015 (709 KB)
<http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf>

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.

Information on the Working Committee which revised the Code, including the
Terms of Reference can be found here.
<http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Activities/committees-and-groups/wc66>

*PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES AT 5.00 P.M. ON (AEDT
<http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/time>) 23 March 2015.*

Please note that all submissions received will be made publically available
on the Communications Alliance website unless the submitter requests
otherwise.
 ------------------------------

Even if you just cut'n'paste the comments made in here in the past day.

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.

Paul.

On 22/02/2015 2:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:

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?

On 22/02/2015 12:37, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:

 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.

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'.

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.

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?

 _______________________________________________

AusNOG mailing list

AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net

http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing listAusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-- 
/* Matt Perkins
        Direct 1300 137 379     Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
        Office 1300 133 299     matt at spectrum.com.au
                                Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
        PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/

_______________________________________________
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/20150223/14d2f0b7/attachment.html>