[AusNOG] Australian senate passes controversial anti-piracy, website-blocking laws

[Paul Wilkins]

Paul,
The point is, per 115A(2) which requires reasonableness, 115A(5e) which
requires a proportionate response, and 115A(5i) which requires 115A to
consider other remedies available under the rest of the Copyright Act, the
question is, is it reasonable to switch off your access routers and go
home? In my opinion, the only reasonable reasonable and proportionate
remedy available is to terminate the user's service.

(I am not a lawyer. This is not legal opinion)

Paul Wilkins

On 23 June 2015 at 17:59, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au> wrote:

>  On 23/06/2015 5:09 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>
>  I haven't read the Copyright Act 1968 in its entirety (and perhaps I
> should), but it looks like (ianal), legal remedies are as:
>
> 116AG       (3)  For an infringement of copyright that occurs in the
> course of the carrying out of a Category A activity, the relief that a
> court may grant against a carriage service provider is limited to one or
> more of the following orders:
>
>                      (a)  an order requiring the carriage service provider
> to take reasonable steps to disable access to an online location outside
> Australia;
>
>                      (b)  an order requiring the carriage service provider
> to terminate a specified account.
>  I doubt on the strength of that, courts will go further than orders to
> terminate specific accounts. What's a bit sneaky, is the courts may rely on
> data retention records in identifying infringing accounts.
>
>
> Huh?
> This has nothing to do with infringing accounts or terminating users.
>
> A copyright holder goes to the courts and says 'I found this website on
> these pages is hosting my movie that I hold the copyright for. The site
> clearly has its primary purpose to facilitate infringement of copyright.
> Please issue an injunction to all the ISPs to have the site blocked under
> Section 115A of the Copyright Act please'.
>
> You and all our colleagues on and off this list get the court injunction
> requiring you to block access to that/those websites for all your
> customers. No user identified, no account to terminate.
>
> They may be preparing the submission to the courts to have 100/200/300+
> sites blocked as we speak.
>
> If your only capability to comply to block access to those hundreds of
> sites is to switch off your access routers and go home, it might be an
> issue to ponder on and plan for a better alternative.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
> On 23 June 2015 at 15:05, Will Dowling <will at autodeist.com> wrote:
>
>> > However, if *you* are the first test case, how do you plan to show to
>> the court what you interpreted as reasonable, and how you tried to use
>> reasonable means? The court order won't tell you what 'reasonable' might
>> mean, or what measures might be considered unreasonable. The content
>> organisation that asked for the injunction certainly won't tell you.
>>
>> I’m more than certain the rights holders will be lining up to tell you
>> what they think is “reasonable”.
>>
>> Which brings us back to who has the burden for establishing it… likely it
>> will be the courts until precedent is set.
>>
>>
>> Will Dowling
>>
>> E: will at autodeist.com
>>  _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150623/a453ef41/attachment.html>