Hollywood Ups Three Strikes Propaganda Campaign In Australia With Misleading Stats

from the but-of-course dept

For a variety of reasons, the MPAA chose Australia as the testing ground for its effort to force ISPs to implement a three-strikes type provision. And make no mistake about it, it was the MPAA -- driven by Hollywood -- that was involved. While the anti-piracy group in Australia, AFACT, wanted to pretend it was an Australian effort, some leaked cables have shown otherwise. The effort focused on picking on one particular ISP, iiNet, which was chosen because it wasn't too big (so didn't have as much money) and wasn't too small (so people noticed). The charges? iiNet failed to wave a magic wand and stop piracy without convictions. iiNet turned out to be the wrong target for a number of reasons, including the fact that the CEO had no problem responding clearly and in an outspoken manner that if there's no legal proof of illegality, it did not seem right to cut someone off. Tragically for the MPAA, the courts have agreed with iiNet.

But, the MPAA is nothing if not persistent in their global desire to blame everyone else for their member studios' unwillingness to adapt. Even after the loss, the MPAA has been threatening more ISPs, and has now released a highly questionable study, laundered through a few organizations of course, from a company that doesn't appear to exist other than to push out MPAA propaganda. The study attempts to show that a three strikes regime would decrease infringement by over 70%. The only problem? The actual data doesn't seem to support that at all, because it includes asking people who don't file share at all how they would react to receiving a "strike." If you don't file share and someone says you'll receive a strike and potentially lose your broadband, you're pretty likely to say you won't keep file sharing. No sweat off your back, since you weren't already. And, even then, the numbers don't really support the MPAA, because a higher percentage of people said they'd keep file sharing than said they were file sharing in the first place! From TorrentFreak:

If 72 percent say they would stop sharing after a warning, then 28 percent didn’t agree with this statement. And since only 22 percent of the people said they used file-sharing software in 2011 (the only people who would be affected by a three strikes system), this means that warnings from ISPs wouldn’t even deter people who aren’t the target of this system in the first place.

Or put differently, it could very well be that none of the 22 percent file-sharers indicated that they would stop doing so when notified by their ISP.

Hell, if you wanted to be silly, it would be entirely possible to read this study to suggest that sending a strike encourages more people to file share...

Filed Under: australia, propaganda, three strikes
Companies: mpaa

Leaked State Department Cable Confirms What Everyone Already Knew: MPAA Was Behind Bogus Australian ISP Lawsuit

from the pulling-the-strings dept

When it comes to copyright issues, the various State Department leaks via Wikileaks have only served to confirm what pretty much everyone already knew. Earlier we'd covered revelations about US diplomatic involvement in new copyright laws in Spain, and the latest (as a bunch of you sent in) is the rather upfront admission that the MPAA was absolutely behind the decision to sue iiNet in Australia. As you may recall, the lawsuit, which was officially organized by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) along with the Australian arms of various movie studios, complained that Australian ISP iiNet didn't do enough to stop unauthorized file sharing. This was really a trial balloon of a case, because the MPAA knew damn well that blaming ISPs for the actions of their users was a tricky game to play. So, they tried to hit up iiNet from a slight tangent, sending over examples of infringement and then freaking out when iiNet didn't somehow magically stop all infringement.

Of course, the reality was that this was all driven directly from the MPAA in the US and iiNet was carefully chosen as a trial balloon given its size. As Richard Chirgwin notes, iiNet got to enjoy this experience because of its "Goldilocks status. iiNet was just right: Telstra is large, loud, litigious, and possessed of significant lobbying experience; too small a target and the case risked inviting the “bullying” perception that the MPAA was keen to avoid."

Despite the lead role of AFACT and the inclusion of Australian companies Village Roadshow and the Seven Network, this is an MPAA/American studios production. Mike Ellis, the Singapore-based President for Asia Pacific of the Motion Picture Association, briefed Ambassador on the filing on November 26. Ellis confirmed that MPAA was the mover behind AFACT's case (AFACT is essentially MPAA's Australian subcontractor; MPAA/MPA have no independent, formal presence here), acting on behalf of the six American studios involved. MPAA prefers that its leading role not be made public. AFACT and MPAA worked hard to get Village Roadshow and the Seven Network to agree to be the public Australian faces on the case to make it clear there are Australian equities at stake, and this isn't just Hollywood "bullying some poor little Australian ISP."

Why iiNet? Ellis said they were the right target on several levels. First, they are big enough to be important - iiNet is the third largest ISP in Australia. (Telstra, owners of top Australian ISP BigPond which has about half of the market, are the "big guns", Ellis admitted. It was clear Ellis did not want to begin by tangling with Telstra, Australia's former telecom monopoly and still-dominant player in telephony and internet, and a company with the financial resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard and dirty, in court and out.) Ellis also said iiNet users had a particularly high copyright violation rate, and that its management has been consistently unhelpful on copyright infringements.

Amusingly, the cable claims the case is "very strong." Turns out that was wrong. iiNet famously won the case, and AFACT was even told to pay iiNet's legal costs. While an appeal somewhat limited the original (excellent and perceptive) ruling, it still crowned iiNet the winner. Perhaps the US government shouldn't trust the MPAA in setting the odds on its own lawsuits.

Anyway, while most people already knew that the MPAA was the key player here, it's nice to see it laid out in black and white. I'm also curious if the folks who usually rush to the comments to claim that the MPAA/RIAA aren't involved in some of the lawsuits we talk about will have any comment on this, since we've explained that most of these legal actions are coordinated from those two groups.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, state department, wikileaks
Companies: afact, iinet, mpaa

Australian Government Considering Three Strikes; Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

from the but-of-course dept

Yet another country is considering a three strikes law, kicking people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement. This time, it's Australia, and as always, the question of who is a stakeholder in this discussion seems to involve the government assuming that it's one party and one party only: the entertainment industry. They're the ones "advising" the government on this. And while some ISPs have been invited to be present at a meeting, no one actually representing consumer interests has yet to be invited.

Filed Under: australia, broadband, copyright, three strikes

Australian Attorneys General Still Feel The Need To Think About The 37-Year-Old 'Children'

from the GTA-is-nothing-but-a-'midlife-crisis-simulator' dept

Australia has a long history of video game censorship, mainly due to the fact that its rating system stops at age 15. This has resulted in a great many games being censored by the manufacturers in order to reach the Australian market and, in some cases, has prevented the sale of offending titles entirely.

Despite the fact that the average gamer is now 37 years old, Australia is still refusing to treat gamers like adults. There has been a lot of talk (some of it dating back to last year) among various politicians about the subject of a new R18+ rating that would bring them in line with much of the rest of the world, but just when it seemed the various parties might reach a consensus, certain holdouts decided to "not vote";:

While the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General had planned on making a decision regarding the introduction of an R18+ rating for video games on Friday at a meeting in Adelaide, the NSW Attorney-General has announced he will not vote on the topic at this time.

In order to change the classification, all nine federal, state and territory censorship ministers must agree - even if all eight remaining vote for the change, one person holding back means the whole deal is postponed until at least the next SCAG meeting.

Well, if these three attorneys general have some concern about the "proper" level of censorship, they must be acting in their constituent's best interests, right?

According to recent studies, two-thirds of the Australian states and territories are publicly in favour of the R18+ introduction (including the controversial South Australian vote) - while the remaining three (NSW, Victoria and Western Australia) announced they would hold off on making a decision until some time closer to the meeting.

So, it comes down to this: certain members of Australia's governing body still firmly believe that gamers are children, and, despite public sentiment otherwise, are now deploying stalling tactics in order to hold off any movement toward treating their game-buying citizens as adults until 2012 at least.

In a recent statement issued to GameSpot AU, a spokesperson for Smith explained:

"We're not going down a definitive route. More work needs to be done on this issue. We want to wait to see the results of the ALRC [Australian Law Reform Commission] classification review."

The ALRC review is currently underway, but no results are expected until early 2012 at the earliest. The review addresses video games, but also other classification-related issues, with an overhaul of the Australian national classification scheme predicted as a result.

At the earliest, Australian gamers will have to wait until they turn 38 in order to have a chance to buy unaltered videogames approved for those ages 18 and above. Of course, what else can be expected from a governing body that included an attorney general who felt that gamers are more dangerous than biker gangs?

Filed Under: australia, censorship, video games

Australian Anti-Piracy Group Threatening ISPs With Legal Action... Even Though Court Already Ruled Against Them

from the fantasy-land dept

Apparently, the Australian "anti-piracy" group AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) is living in a bit of a fantasy land. Despite losing badly in the courts twice by trying to force iiNet to act as a copyright cop, without knowing what is and what is not infringing content, AFACT is now warning other ISPs that they must become copyright cops, or else.

The letter makes several references to the Federal Appeal Court's February ruling on AFACT's bid to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement by their customers.

It gives Exetel seven days to indicate whether it will "attend a meeting with AFACT" to discuss a system of graduated responses to online piracy.

It seems kind of bizarre to cite a ruling in which you lost badly, as a reason why others need to do something that the court said iiNet didn't have to do.

Filed Under: afact, australia, copyright, isps, liability

Dear People Of Australia: If You Don't Want Widespread Gov't Censorship Of The Internet, Speak Up Now

from the make-yourself-heard dept

We recently wrote about the latest in a long series of attempts by the government in Australia to massively censor the internet, creating its own "Great Wall" blacklist, like China. However, as Andrew Djemal alerts us, despite lots of complaints about this online, it appears that people in Australia are not speaking up in the official forums provided for public comment on this matter:

If you've ever wondered why government and legislators so routinely ignore the numerous protestations and objections made by gamers and those against internet filtering, you'd be well advised to look at the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) list of public submissions. The Issues Paper has been published since May 20 and as yet only 80 public submissions have been made - 80 per cent of them from people who believe in government intervention for the sake of child protection.

As the report notes, if people don't speak up in the right places, it shouldn't be any wonder that politicians ignore them. The ALRC is reminding people that if they want to submit comments, they need to do so by July 15th. So, to all the folks in Australia who are complaining about these actions online, now would be a good time to move your complaints from random other places on the internet, and put them where it matters right now.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, filters, free speech, public comment

Telstra Having Second Thoughts Over Censorship Plan; Fears Reprisals From Hactivists

from the having-an-impact dept

Well, this is getting interesting. While I still don't approve of the tactics of vigilante hacker groups, it's hard to deny that they're having some impact. After reports came out that Autralian telco giant Telstra was going to start censoring the internet by blocking a bunch of sites the government says are evil, the company has now indicated that it's wavering on its support of the plan, in large part due to fear of hacker reprisal attacks. In the stilted English of The Australian:

It is understood Telstra was last night still grappling with the decision as to whether to commit to the voluntary filter because of fears of reprisals from the internet vigilantes behind a spate of recent cyber attacks.

It is understood the unstructured collective of hackers that identifies itself as Lulz Security, which has an agenda to wreak havoc on corporate and government cyber assets, claiming this is to expose security flaws, is one of Telstra main concerns.

While I don't think the filters are a good idea, and am surprised and impressed by the "effectiveness" of LulzSec's efforts in getting Telstra to be aware that people don't like these filters and that there could be consequences, I do still wonder if this is really the best way to go about these things. Lots of folks will cheer this on because they agree with the end result (no censorship), but what if LulzSec (or a similar group, now that LulzSec says it's going away) makes a unilateral decision on something you disagree with? One of the problems of the censorship plan in Australia is that there's no oversight, and no way to appeal. But isn't that the same thing with those targeted by hactivists? Even if we agree with their general outlook, there's still a very real risk of collateral damage in a different way.

Of course, it's not just Telstra rethinking its position on censoring the internet. Apparently some of the other ISPs who had agreed to take part in this "voluntary" censorship are suddenly saying that it's not definite yet as to whether they'll take part. It sounds like many of these ISPs hoped they could just start censoring the internet without anyone noticing.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, filters, hactivists, lulzsec, politics
Companies: telstra

Australia, Once Again, Seeks To Censor The Internet

from the downunder-fail dept

For about a decade now, we've been talking about attempt after attempt after attempt after attempt by the Australian government to censor the internet.

It looks like they're at it again. After much pressure from the Australian government, the country's two largest ISPs, Telstra and Optus (along with two smaller ISPs, itExtreme and Webshield) have agreed to start censoring the internet, blocking a secret list of websites from view. The government will give them the list, and they'll block. There's no review or accountability, and the government can just put webpages they don't like on the list... and too bad:

The problem with such a plan is multi-layered: First, there is no transparency in the selection of URLs to be blacklisted, and no accountability from the regulatory bodies creating the blacklists. The “reputable international organizations” providing child abuse URLs have not been named, but may include the Internet Watch Foundation, a UK-based organization that in 2008 advised UK ISPs to block a Wikipedia page containing an album cover from the 1970s that they deemed might be illegal.

The ACMA itself has run into problems with its blacklist as well. After Wikileaks published the regulator’s blacklist in 2009, it was discovered that the list contained the website of a Queensland-based dentist, as well as numerous other sites unrelated to child sexual abuse or illegal pornography.

Second, filtering does little to curb the trade of child pornography, much of which is traded across peer to peer networks and VPNs. Filtering it from the world wide web may simply push it further underground.

Third, there appears to be no appeals process in the Australian ISPs’ scheme, thereby making it difficult for sites erroneously caught up in the filter to challenge the block.

Lastly, the introduction of a filter sets precedent for the ISPs to filter more sites in the future at the behest of the ACMA. If the ACMA were to make the decision that sites deemed "indecent" or politically controversial--for example--should be off-limits, would the ISPs comply?

This has all been discussed many times before, and yet the Australian government just can't resist. No matter how many times it's explained to them the clear unintended consequences of blind censorship, and the fact that it won't do any good, they just keep pushing forward with the same plan.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, filters

Did The Recording Industry Really Step Back From Three Strikes? Or Is It Playing Word Games?

from the don't-buy-it dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the story from TorrentFreak claiming that representatives from Music Industry Piracy Investigations -- an anti-piracy group representing the major labels in Australia -- has said that it no longer favors three strikes laws, following theUN report that condemned such measures as a violation of civil rights. I didn't report on this at first, but since people keep submitting it, I figured I might as well comment on it: and I think the story is wrong. From the sound of things, I think the MIPI folks may have pulled a fast one. The key line is the quote from MIPI general manager Sabiene Heindl that it supports "mitigation measures" concerning infringement, but that "such measures would not include termination of Internet accounts."

Now, clearly, that might sound like backing away from three strikes, but I don't think it does. That's because we saw nearly the same thing a year and a half ago in the debate in the UK over the Digital Economy Act, where politicians supporting the Act, which is a variation on "three strikes" fought back against the public campaign against the Act by declaring that "disconnection" was no longer on the table. But, really, they were just playing word games. What they meant was permanent disconnection wasn't on the table, but it wasn't really ever in the bill. They were still very much in favor of so-called "temporary account suspension" which could last six months or more in some cases.

In other words, it's a terminology issue more than anything else. Many people are concerned about any internet access account loss, and consider a six month suspension to be pretty bad. But to avoid the dreaded "termination" or "disconnection" buzzword, supporters of three strikes now like to claim that their plans include no such thing -- instead it's just a "temporary account suspension." I'm guessing that this is exactly what the MIPI folks meant by saying they don't favor termination, but do favor mitigation. That mitigation might just turn out to be a "temporary" account suspension for three strikes. So, my sense is that this story is overblown. MIPI has carefully chosen language to make it seem not as extreme and to not anger as many people, but it could still very much support three strikes... just for extended "temporary" disconnections.

Filed Under: australia, disconnections, three strikes