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

[Justin Clacherty]

What are you on about Paul?

It's like you take any crap piece of legislation government puts through 
and attempt to implement the actual worst case (dream case for the 
government) in every regard. I am astonished you have any actual 
customers if this is your response to regulation.

Site blocking has nothing whatsoever to do with customers. What's more, 
case law (iiTrial) suggests that what you're proposing here is not 
remotely what's required of an ISP who has customers infringing copyright.

Pull your head in and stop commenting on things about which you know 
nothing.

Justin.


On 23/06/2015 6:41 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto:will at autodeist.com>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150623/27cf8d94/attachment.html>