Australia's SOPA Gets The Green Light

from the site-blocking-down-under dept

Last December, we warned that Australia was about to get its own version of SOPA. The key aspects of the proposed law were exactly the parts of SOPA that so concerned millions of people in America: the ability of someone to make a copyright complaint that would force an ISP or other third parties to block entire websites with little to no due process. In March, just such a bill was introduced, pushed by Attorney General George Brandis, who refused to listen to consumer advocates and their concerns (though he met plenty of times with Hollywood reps). Also, more importantly, supporters of the bill did not conduct any sort of cost/benefit analysis to see if it was worthwhile.

And now, that bill has been given the green light to move forward after the Parliamentary committee reviewing the bill voted to move forward with it -- despite the lack of the cost/benefit analysis. From their recommendations, it appears that almost everyone on the committee has almost no clue about how this would work, the impact on free expression or the collateral damage created from blocking entire sites. Instead, it just takes for granted that "copyright infringement poses a significant threat to the viability and success of Australia's creative industries" and thus something must be done! Even if that "something" won't solve the problem and will actually create many more problems.

In addressing the lacking cost/benefit analysis, the committee more or less shrugs its shoulders and says, well, how about we add a plan to review how well this is working two years down the road.

The only dissenting view was put forth by Senator Scott Ludlam, who spoke out clearly about the problems of Australia implementing its own SOPA:

The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 is the latest in a long line of misguided attempts by the government to monitor, control and censor the Internet.

The Bill will allocate a significant new censorship power to the Court that will be used by copyright owners to block access to online content. However, there is a substantial weight of evidence showing that it will be relatively easy to evade the Bill's provisions, that it does not contain appropriate safeguards, and that it may result in legitimate online sources being blocked.

Most importantly, there is also a significant weight of evidence showing that the Bill will not meet its aims, as it does not address the underlying cause of online copyright infringement: The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available in a timely, convenient and affordable manner to Australians.

As we had mentioned, there had been some concern earlier this year that the vague terms in the bill -- specifically about "facilitating" infringement -- could lead to VPNs being banned. When asked about that, defenders of the bill kept giving non-committal answers about that not being the target -- and the committee report seems to accept that as fine, so long as there's some sort of notation with the bill saying that it's not intended to go after VPNs:

The committee acknowledges the evidence given by the Department of Communications regarding VPNs but notes that the Bill does not explicitly contemplate the introduction of injunctions against VPNs. The committee also notes that VPNs are unlikely to meet the 'primary purpose test' in proposed paragraphs 115A(1)(a)-(c). The committee would however be reassured if the government were to clarify the status of VPNs in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

What's somewhat amazing to me is that a couple years ago, when it looked like Australia might actually introduce fair use into its copyright law, the copyright industry flipped out, arguing, in part, that because there wasn't a history of case law to rely on, it would lead to craziness while the courts sorted things out.

Yet, amazingly, when it comes to this sort of site blocking, it appears the copyright maximalists take the exact opposite stance: arguing that it's fine to let the courts flat out censor websites, because the courts will have lots of "discretion" to sort things out:

The committee takes the view that by providing the Court with a high level of discretion the Bill would allow the Court to both target specific issues that arise in individual cases and develop a general body of jurisprudence to provide more legal certainty into the future. As the Bill would allow the Court to tailor an order to the circumstances of a particular case, the committee expects that the Bill would encourage the Court to draft orders in such a way so as to effectively deal with the online copyright infringement but at the same time limit any unintended consequences such as over-blocking or accidental blocking.

Yeah, because courts never get tripped up by this kind of stuff...

And of course, Australia should know damn well how poorly this kind of stuff works in practice, because after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission tried to block about 1,000 websites a couple years ago, it accidentally knocked a quarter of a million sites offline because no one understood that multiple sites could share the same IP address. And yet, these are the same people voting to move forward with this plan to let the government simply declare websites "bad" and cut them off.

Again, as we noted back in the SOPA days, nearly every new technology has been declared a major "facilitator" of "piracy" by the copyright industries before they figured out how to use them. This includes: radio, recorded music, television, cable television, the photocopier, the VCR, digital music, the DVR, the MP3 player, online video and online storage lockers. All of them. Under bills like SOPA or this Australian version of SOPA, the industry is allowed to effectively kill such innovations early, making it more difficult for the content industries to adapt and embrace these new services which time and time again have been shown to make the industry more money in the long run.

It is the ultimate ignorant and lazy response of Australian politicians to believe that they need to block new innovations because the copyright industry refuses to innovate or figure out ways to better serve the public. And, even worse, they seem to feel the only way to do so is in a way that censors large parts of the internet, puts tremendous costs on ISPs (to be passed on to consumers), and which will only serve to drive infringement further underground, rather than magically convincing people to give extra money to Hollywood.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, copyright, site blocking, sopa, vpns

Australia Considers New Copyright Law That Could Be Interpreted To Ban VPNs

from the very-probably-nixed dept

Some months back, our own Glyn Moody wrote about the music industry in Australia and its attempt to basically broadly multiply copyright protections, routing around the public's representatives in government to get ISPs to act as judge, jury and executioner. Then, because Glyn Moody is a witch who turned my sister into a newt, he wondered aloud whether VPNs would be the next target in the copyright industry's crosshairs.

Well, it turns out that yes, yes they are. Only this time, the industry lobbyists are going right to the Australian legislature to act as their bullies with the Copyright Amendment Bill 2015.

If it is passed, copyright owners would be able to apply for a federal court order requiring internet service providers to block overseas sites whose primary purpose is infringing copyright or facilitating the infringement of copyright. While the bill is designed to target BitTorrent sites, such as the Pirate Bay, there are concerns other online services such as VPNs and digital storage lockers could fall victim.

The campaigns manager for Choice, Erin Turner, says at least 684,000 Australian households currently employ VPNs to bypass geoblocks and access overseas content at globally competitive prices.

No need to go half way here: if the bill is written and passed in its current vague iteration, VPNs and storage lockers absolutely will be under attack. Entertainment companies both foreign and domestic have been complaining for years about Australians using VPNs to route around geo-restrictions and get overseas content and it would be silly to pretend like infringers don't use VPNs to conceal themselves. All that said, there are a ton of legitimate reasons to use a VPN or storage locker. That's why crafting industry-specific legislation like this is so tricky, particularly when the target of the law is a widely used product of platform. There are simply going to be consequences that the public would consider unintended and that I consider specifically intended in the vagueness of the law. Copyright protection advocates always want more, never less, and they aren't exactly known for behaving reservedly when they feel they have tools at their disposal.

The enemy here is ambiguity.

Copyright expert Kimberlee Weatherall says it is difficult to predict if the bill will be used by copyright holders to argue for an injunction against a VPN service because it lacks clarity regarding services and sites whose primary purpose is not copyright infringement, although may be being used for that purpose.

Which means that the law cannot be allowed to pass as it is currently written. Legislation doesn't necessarily have to be specifically proscriptive, but a lack of clarity on a technology service so common and so tangential to the chief target of the bill means the bill sucks. Hell, it's not like I'm making this concern up, even. Already content providers are arguing for tightened screws on Aussie VPNs.

Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder managing director Nick Murray told Mumbrella the current arrangements are only benefitting international players like Netflix because under the current production deals content is sold by territories.

Asked if it should be illegal for Australians to access overseas platforms using a VPN he said: “It should be. It should absolutely be regulated somehow to make it so people in Australia shouldn’t use VPNs.”Murray defended the arrangement of selling content by territory saying “that’s how we get our money” adding: “The people people who say we should get rid of the geo-blocker, it’s just bizarre, as that is how content is sold.”

Yes, arguing that something should change is bizarre because that thing hasn't changed yet. Great argument you have there. But we can at least give Murray credit for being blatantly open and honest about his desire to take technology tools away from Australian citizens.

Filed Under: australia, bad laws, banning vpns, copyright, encryption, facilitation, vpn, vpns

Big Media Companies Insist That VPN Services Violate Copyright Law

from the fighting-the-tide dept

Back during the SOPA fight, in a discussion with someone who was working with the politicians pushing SOPA, I pointed out that such a law would encourage much more encryption -- and the response was "that's no problem, because we'll just ban encryption next." As stupid and impossible as such a statement is, it shows the mindset of some copyright extremists. Thus, it should be no surprise that they're actually starting down just such a path in New Zealand. As we noted last year, Kiwi ISPs, frustrated that their users kept running up against geoblocks, have started offering VPN services that get around geoblocks as a standard feature there. Basically, this is nothing more than a recognition that the internet really is global and attempts to pretend otherwise are pretty fruitless.

However, the big media companies are not happy about this turn of events. A week or so ago, a bunch of them (Lightbox, MediaWorks, SKY, and TVNZ) teamed up to threaten New Zealand ISPs that if they didn't stop offering "global mode" VPN services to customers, that the media companies would sue -- arguing that merely offering such a service was copyright infringement. The letter is full of the usual bluster:

“Offshore providers, such as Netflix US, Hulu, Amazon Prime and BBC iplayer do not have the right to exploit the copyright works in New Zealand,” the letter says. Licenses they hold apply only to specific overseas locations and prohibit customers from circumventing geo-blocking measures and other content protections.

That may be true, but whether or not those companies are operating in New Zealand is not an issue that is of concern to the ISPs, who are providing internet access to the entire internet. If Netflix US, Hulu, Amazon and the BBC were the ones sneaking around the geoblocks, the companies might have a point. But arguing that merely offering a VPN service to users somehow violates the law seems like a crazy interpretation of copyright laws.

But, of course, crazy interpretations of copyright laws are the norm these days, and there are always some lawyers who will insist the media companies have a case, such as the lawyer quoted in that article. The basic argument seems to be a variation on felony interference of a business model:

The four are claiming that Global Mode, offered by Slingshot and Orcon, and similar services offered by other providers, are ‘unlawful’ for several reasons.

Top of the list is infringement of the Copyright Act 1994, ‘either directly or as a joint tortfeasor’.

The four are also claiming the services are unlawful in providing ‘misleading representations’ in stating or implying ‘without a proper basis’ that it is lawful for New Zealand based users of the services to access content from the offshore providers, and that ‘circumvention of geo-blocking measures in this way is permitted by New Zealand law (just like parallel importing of DVDs)’.

The four are also claiming that use of the services constitutes a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the offshore providers – being the likes of Netflix, Hulu and Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime and BBC iPlayer.

From a loose reading of this it seems like they're really arguing three things: (1) that offering such a service is a form of "inducement" to infringement, (2) that this is a form of circumvention of restrictions, which violates anti-circumvention clauses and (3) that this violates the terms of those video services.

The third argument is meaningless since that's an issue between those services and the ISPs, not the media companies and the ISPs. The first one seems like a stretch but probably depends on a few factors, including how the services are marketed and whether or not merely viewing geoblocked content is a form of direct infringement (which seems like a stretch to me). The circumvention issue also seems like a stretch, but may depend on the specifics of New Zealand's Copyright Act, which I'm not as familiar with. You can read it here though to see which sections might apply.

Either way, with the threat looming, at least one ISP has caved, saying it's not worth the fight:

Unlimited Internet director Ben Simpson says that while his company doesn’t necessarily agree with that assertion, it has taken down the service nonetheless.

“Geo-unblocking services are a direct result of consumer demand for access to content that is not made available to the New Zealand market,” Simpson says.

“To be on the safe side, we have taken legal advice on this matter and I have made a firm call that we will sit on the sideline until a legal precedent has been set.”

Of course, whether or not offering such a service technically violates copyright law is kind of besides the point, as the very idea that offering such a service should be against the law is crazy. Such services provide real value to consumers not just in getting around pointless geoblocks, but also in protecting privacy. Trying to outlaw VPN services like that just to protect obsolete business models of media companies pretending the world is not global these days, just seems like yelling at the tide. But, given that it's big old media companies we're dealing with, they still haven't figured out that going with the tide is much easier than ordering it not to come in...

Filed Under: circumvention, copyright, geoblocking, global mode, global service, inducement, new zealand, vpns
Companies: lightbox, mediaworks, orcon, sky, slingshot, tvnz, unlimited internet

Copyright Industry Keeps Asking For More In Australia: VPN Ban Next?

from the collateral-damage dept

Techdirt has been following the rather depressing saga of the Australian government's attempt to ram through new copyright powers for some time now. As TorrentFreak reports, under great pressure from the Australian government, local ISPs have put together a draft voluntary code for dealing with alleged copyright infringement (pdf). The Australasian Music Publishers Association (AMPAL) has now weighed in, and basically wants everything to be much harsher, including the following:

"The Code does not place a general obligation on ISPs to monitor and detect online copyright infringement," the publishers write. "AMPAL submits that ideally the Code should include such a duty using ISPs’ monitoring and filtering techniques."

...

"The Code does not require ISPs to block access to infringing material. AMPAL submits that ideally the Code should include provisions obliging ISPs to take such action following provision of the relevant information by Rights Holders and/or following discovery of copyright infringing websites by ISPs’ monitoring and filtering techniques," the publishers write.

...

"AMPAL submits that ideally additional options should be available to Rights Holders in the form of sanctions or mitigation procedures to be imposed on Account Holders," the publishers write.

In other words, AMPAL wants to get ISPs do all the dirty work, turning them into both cops and executioner. But AMPAL isn't alone in coming up with disproportionate responses to the ISP code. Via ZDNet, here's a comment from BBC Worldwide (pdf), the wholly-owned commercial arm of the British broadcaster:

The Code is ill-equipped [to] deal with consumers who spoof or mask their IP addresses to avoid detection, behaviour that we believe will increase as a result of an introduction of a notice scheme.

The footnote for that point refers to a TorrentFreak article about Canadian piracy notifications boosting demand for VPNs, which confirms that what BBC Worldwide is concerned about here is the ease with which Australians will be able to use things like VPNs to evade sanctions by masking their IP address.

Of course, anyone who understands how the Internet works -- and how people use it -- has been pointing this out for years. But the worrying thing is that the copyright industry seems to be surprised by this possibility. Knowing the way it thinks, and its complete indifference to the collateral damage it might cause, the fear has to be that the next stage in its war on sharing will be demanding that governments ban VPNs.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, copyright, copyright police, isps, monitoring, vpns
Companies: ampal

Rogers Exec Pouts About VPNs, Publicly Dreams Of Canadian Ban

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Over the years, many folks in the broadcast and entertainment industries have made it increasingly clear they'd love to see tools like VPNs or proxy services made illegal. Sure, both are perfectly legal and have a myriad of valid purposes, but because they can allow users to dodge anti-piracy snooping efforts (like the not-really effective U.S. six strikes program) or geo-blocks (like say watching Netflix in unsupported countries) -- apparently they should be outlawed entirely. You know, like in Iran -- and now Russia.

Canadian law professor Michael Geist notes that several Rogers, Bell and Shaw executives recently gathered for the Content Industry Connect conference in Toronto. There, Rogers Senior Vice President David Purdy spent some time complaining that VPNs "aren't fair" and -- according to at least one attendee -- suggested that the government should think about banning them. You know, just because:

Purdy - need the govt to shut down VPNs, enforce copyright then can have a viable business #cicto

— Kelly Lynne Ashton (@klashton27) February 26, 2015

Purdy: if gov not willing to stop piracy, VPNs, BitTorrent not fair #cicto

— Marcia Douglas (@Marcia_Douglas) February 26, 2015

Rogers' "me too" streaming video service Shomi isn't really resonating with consumers, and blocking Canadian VPN/Netflix users would certainly be easier than actually competing. As Geist is quick to note, it's unlikely that the Canadian government is going to want to wade into the minefield of banning VPNs, so all Purdy managed to do is make him and his company seem somewhat narrow-minded and unnecessarily aggressive:

"If Rogers is upset over VPN use to access U.S. Netflix, it should take it up with Netflix. Instead, focusing on consumer VPN use by suggesting that the solution lies in blocking legal technologies in order to stop consumer access is a dangerous one. Countries like China have tried to regulate VPNs, while Iran and Oman have tried to ban them. A Canadian attempt to do so would be subject to an immediate legal challenge, particularly since virtual private networks are widely used within the business community and play a crucial role for consumers in preserving user privacy, enabling access to information, and facilitating free speech."

After Geist posted a number of attendee Tweets citing Purdy's disdain for VPNs, a Rogers spokesperson denied that Purdy said anything of the sort, lamenting that it's "hard to communicate a discussion via Twitter." I've yet to find a transcript of the comments (and Purdy doesn't appear to be responding to media inquiries), but given Rogers' ugly history as a front-runner when it comes to net neutrality violations, quietly dreaming of a ban on VPNs certainly wouldn't be out of character for the company.

Filed Under: canada, competition, copyright, david purdy, privacy, vpns
Companies: rogers

Russia Reaches The Censorship Endgame: Banning VPNs, Tor And Web Proxies

from the ghouls,-all-gathered-in-one-place dept

We have been tracking for some time the increasingly repressive measures that the Russian authorities have brought in to censor and control the Internet. Of course, Techdirt readers know that an easy way to circumvent both censorship and control is to use tools like VPNs and Tor. Unfortunately, the Russian authorities also know this, and are now calling for action against them, as TorrentFreak reports:

Speaking at Infoforum-2015, Russian MP Leonid Levin, who is deputy head of the Duma Committee on information politics, indicated that access to anonymization and circumvention tools such as TOR, VPNs and even web proxies, needs to be restricted.

Levin also called for Roskomnadzor, the state agency that oversees communications and the Internet, to be given more powers to intervene. If the views of Vadim Ampelonskogo, Roskomnadzor's chief press officer, are anything to go by, that is likely to have serious consequences for online freedom:

Describing the Tor network as a "den of criminals" and "ghouls, all gathered in one place", Ampelonskogo said Roskomnadzor would find a solution to block anonymous networks if it was supported by a relevant regulatory framework.

What's troubling about this latest call for even tighter control is that it was entirely predictable. Once governments start blocking sites and restricting freedom of speech online, people inevitably respond by using VPNs and Tor to circumvent these measures. And that means that if governments want their laws to be effective, at some point they will take direct action against circumvention tools. That's why it's particularly worrying that Western governments have started down this road: it implies that they, too, might one day try to ban VPNs and Tor.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: censorship. vladimir putin, free speech, leonid levin, proxies, roskomnadzor, russia, tor, vpns

Kiwi ISP Offers Service To Get Around Geoblocking As A Standard Feature

from the good-idea dept

One of the most idiotic aspects of the internet these days is geoblocking -- the practice of certain websites only being available in certain countries. Nothing seems to get internet users angrier than going to any particular piece of content online, knowing it exists on an easily accessible server... and being told "screw you, because of the patch of dirt you happen to physically be sitting on at this moment, you can't see this content." The standard way around these things has been to use proxies or various VPN services that allow you to route your traffic through other countries. However, an ISP in New Zealand (a country frequently beset by "not available in your territory"-type messages) has decided to add a geoblocking-workaround service as a standard feature for all its users. The ISP, Slingshot, has a pretty straightforward explanation for its new "Global Mode" offering:

Ever tried to go to a website, only to be told you can't see it because you live in New Zealand? We think that's bizarre, and it's why we have introduced Global Mode.

Global Mode is a brilliant service that lets you visit a range sites that are normally blocked to people from New Zealand. And it's free for Slingshot broadband customers.

We think it's pretty awesome - and lets you surf and view the sites that you want to see.

And, of course, this means that folks in New Zealand using Slingshot can get easy access to things like Netflix and Hulu, which were previously geoblocked. It will be interesting to see how the various content providers respond to this move. So far, the only stated response is that some believe that better licensing in those countries will win the day, but that seems unlikely.

Here's a prediction: if this becomes more common (and other ISPs are apparently paying close attention), expect to see this issue pop up in various trade agreement talks like TPP and TAFTA/TTIP. Content providers will probably seek to insert some ridiculous clause equating getting around geoblocking to getting around DRM, and make it defacto infringement.

Filed Under: content, geo blocking, new zealand, restrictions, vpns
Companies: slingshot

Turkish Prime Minister Bans Twitter... Turkish People Turn Around And Ban The Ban

from the censorship dept

Over the last few weeks we've discussed a few times how Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to ban Twitter. If you don't follow the details of what's happening in Turkey, Zeynep Tufecki has a great backgrounder piece in the NY Times. Either way, the threats became reality, as Erdogan flat out announced his intent was to "eradicate Twitter" and also:

I don't care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic

Turkish ISPs followed the orders to block Twitter, but so far, it's not the power of the Turkish Republic we're seeing, but the power of people and technology to route around attempts at censorship. Many people quickly turned to VPNs or realized that they could still Tweet via text message... or that they could use alternative DNS providers. In fact, it's reached such a level that there's graffiti on the walls in Turkey pointing to Google's DNS which lets users route around the Twitter block:

Twitter is blocked in Turkey. On the streets of Istanbul, the action against censorship is graffiti DNS addresses. pic.twitter.com/XcsfN7lJvS

— Utku Can (@utku) March 21, 2014

And it appears that the people are winning so far, as Turkish Twitter users are still tweeting at quite a rapid rate.

As we had noted earlier, while the Prime Minister has been pushing this, Turkey's (less powerful) President, Abdullah Gul has been fighting back against these censorship attempts, and even went so far as to get around the ban himself to tweet against the ban and his tweet quickly was retweeted thousands of times.

Twitter itself is apparently looking into legal action to restore the site fully, but so far it seems that basic technology and the will of the people is beating out the "legal" process. As Tufecki has now noted, Erdogan may have banned Twitter in Turkey, but "people in Turkey had banned the ban."

Filed Under: abdullah gal, censorship, dns, recep erdogan, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey, vpns
Companies: twitter