[AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"
Matt Perkins
matt at spectrum.com.au
Mon Feb 23 14:06:28 EST 2015
You may have a point there. I just think the government have a better
reason then they want to appease US rights holders at the expense of
popularity in the electorate. Governments rarely do large unpopular
changes for the fun of it.
Matt
On 23/02/2015 2:02 pm, Rod Veith wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> I think you miss the point on how to approach the issue. There is
> already an established Australian legal process for Right’s Holders.
> The problem is that these large US companies don’t like it. They want
> to save themselves money by changing the existing process. They don’t
> care that it is going to cost you money to fix their problem.
>
> Now why should we roll over and simply acquiesce to their solution and
> also be forced to pay for it?
>
> Rod
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of
> *Matt Perkins
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 1:13 PM
> *To:* Robert Hudson
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"
>
> Hi Robert,
> I should not have been so absolute. There is a circumstance where
> both meta data retention and this "Pirate Code". Will not go ahead.
> It's if Australia withdraws from or modify the terms of the US/AU
> FTA. Under the Free Trade Agreement we need to take all reasonable
> measures to insure Australian's follow the law (US LAW) in regard to
> dealing with the rights holders. That's up to providing evidence to
> convict an Australian in a US court.
>
> So as long as we keep on with the US/AU FTA we will be doing this in
> some form or another. Doing nothing is not making reasonable
> efforts. That's not taking into account eveything we dont know we
> have agreed to as part of the Five Eye's .
>
> Let's get on with working out how to make this as least painful for us
> as possible. To my mind that's working with whomever has taken the
> initiative to set this up. We are in a better boat here then data
> retention. At least someone is slightly on our side.
>
> Matt.
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2015 12:50 pm, Robert Hudson wrote:
>
> 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] *On
> Behalf Of *Rod Veith
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 8:50 AM
> *To:* 'Paul Brooks'; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> <mailto: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] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Brooks
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 8:14 AM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto: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 <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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> /* Matt Perkins
>
> Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
>
> Office 1300 133 299matt at spectrum.com.au <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>
>
> Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
>
> PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found athttp://pgp.mit.edu
>
> */
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> --
> /* Matt Perkins
> Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
> Office 1300 133 299matt at spectrum.com.au <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>
> Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
> PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found athttp://pgp.mit.edu
> */
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://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
*/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150223/4f809942/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list