Movie Studios Continue To Demand Australian ISP Admit To Supporting Piracy

from the but,-uh,-it-didn't... dept

You may recall last November that a bunch of movie studios got together and sued Australian ISP iiNet, for not being able to wave a magic wand and make all unauthorized file sharing among its users disappear. The ISP, who has taken a very pro-consumer stance, responded by noting that if there's any "theft" involved, it should be a matter for the police to investigate, not an ISP to take action based on allegations alone:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

In March, the company further explained its defense, noting that direct file sharing between two individuals doesn't appear to violate Australian copyright laws, since there's no "public" distribution of the material.

The latest, as pointed out by Michael Scott, is that the studios are basically stomping their feet and demanding that iiNet admit that it broke copyright law.

To be honest, it appears the two sides are talking past one another. The studios insist that iiNet is breaking the law by not taking action against file sharers, while iiNet is pointing out that's not the issue. It's saying it would be perfectly happy to take action against those convicted in a court of violating the law. But it can't just take the studio's word for it, and so it sees no reason to act until a court has convicted someone.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, infringement, isps, liability
Companies: iinet

Australian High Court Says Electronic TV Guide Isn't Copyright Infringement

from the good-news! dept

Back in 2006, an Australian TV network, The Nine Network, sued a startup, IceTV, for creating an electronic program guide that listed out when TV programs played for use in programming DVRs and such. It was difficult to see how a simple listing of TV program info could be infringement, but an Australian court disagreed, saying that the networks owned their own scheduling info. Luckily, however, Phill informs us that Australia's high court has overturned the lower court ruling, saying that creating your own TV program guide without licensing the info is perfectly legal. It's sad that it had to take nearly three years for this conclusion, but at least it's the right result.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, tv guide
Companies: icetv, nine network

Austalian ISP Stands Up For Users In Court -- Claims They're Not Violating Copyright

from the this-could-get-interesting... dept

Late last year, a bunch of movie studios sued Australian ISP iiNet (which already has a reputation for standing up for its users) for not waving a magic wand and stopping any unauthorized file sharing that occurred among its customers. iiNet responded by pointing out the obvious: if the studios feel they've been wronged, they should take it up with the police, not iiNet. In fact, they said they pass such complaints directly to the police:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

The case is moving forward now, and iiNet has kicked things off by suggesting that users sharing files on a one-to-one basis via BitTorrent don't seem to be violating Australian copyright law. Specifically, iiNet seems to be saying that using BitTorrent doesn't violate copyright because a one-to-one trade isn't distributing the content publicly (a version of the "making available" debate still going on in the US in some circles) and also pointing out that since BitTorrent breaks files up into so many small pieces, no individual user appears to be distributing enough to be considered copyright infringement.

While the argument does, in fact, make plenty of sense -- I wonder if it will actually fly in court. The entertainment industry has convinced so many people that any sort of unauthorized use of content is "piracy" that an emotional argument may prevail. In fact, the movie studios already seem to be going for the emotional argument expressing shock that iiNet can claim that its customers aren't violating copyright law.

The case will be an interesting one to follow -- though, you know if iiNet prevails, lobbyists will move quite quickly to push the Australian government to change copyright law to clarify the issue. Just watch: if it happens, there will be a rash of stories about how Australia "has to" do this to "comply with international treaties." It's how these things work.

To be honest, I'm surprised iiNet is taking such an extreme position. It seems like sticking with the "we're just the neutral service provider" response would have a higher likelihood of success.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, filters, isps
Companies: iinet

Why Are Australia's Would-Be 'Net Censors So Opposed To Transparency?

from the let's-try-the-best-of-disinfectants,-shall-we? dept

A lot of people have been submitting the news that Wikileaks has obtained and published the secret black-list of websites to be banned under Australia's proposed Internet censoring exercise. The list of more than 2300 websites is about half child pornography and half "online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist."

As Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, explains, by making these lists secret and threatening to fine disclosure of the list at $11,000 per day, the democracy of Australia is "invariably corrupted." There is no due process to to add sites to the list, or to remove them, and as previous leaked lists show, even censorship systems set up to block legitimately illegal sites end up being abused. As web censorship scholar Derek Bambauer has written, an Internet censorship regime should be judged on openness, transparency, narrowness and accountability, but by keeping the list secret and threatening those who would allow democratic deliberation about its contents, Australia's web censors undermine the political process of a democracy.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, transparency

Australian Web Censorship Project Moves Ahead, Despite Lack Of Political Support

from the just-enough-rope-to-hang-themselves dept

At the end of last month, it looked like Australia's plan to censor the web had died after it lost support in the country's senate. But The Register reports that Australian regulators are going ahead and using the same blacklist that was part of that effort to threaten sites with fines. The Australian Communications and Media Authority threatened a broadband discussion forum with an A$11,000 ($7,250) daily fine after one of its users posted a link to an anti-abortion site on the blacklist. But it gets a little deeper, as the site was apparently put on the blacklist on the basis of a single complaint -- made by a guy who wanted to illustrate the stupidity of the system by getting a site listed that's got nothing to do with child porn, the supposed target of the censorship plan. When even politicians won't support something like this that's supposed to "protect the children," it should be pretty apparent that it's not a good idea. So why is the regulator moving ahead with it?

Filed Under: australia, censorship, filters

Australia The Latest To Look At Having Artists Paid Multiple Times For The Same Work

from the economic-illiteracy dept

We were just talking about how New Zealand was scrapping its plan for an artist resale right, when Michael Scott pointed us to the news (from last month) that Australia has just proposed an artist resale right. It's not clear how many times it needs to be explained that such things are bad for most artists before politicians will get it. The only artists such a "right" helps are those who are quite successful -- in other words, the ones least likely to need it. For new and upcoming artists, such a resale right creates quite a bit of harm. It acts as a disincentive for anyone to buy or sell their artwork, and limits the likelihood of their artwork becoming well known.

The problem is that, thanks to the rise of the copyright lobby, people really do think that "creation = permanent ownership" at this point. If you're going to create a resale right for art, why not for everything else? If I build a house, why shouldn't I get a percentage of the transaction every time it's sold? The argument is the same as for a resale right for art. Keep applying the argument in other sectors and you realize how dumb it becomes. As part of my job, I use a Lenovo laptop. That laptop helps me make money -- and therefore, under this reasoning, shouldn't I pay a percentage of any profits I make back to Lenovo? Of course not. Why? Because I paid Lenovo originally for the laptop and that was a completed transaction. The fact that I then went on to create value with the laptop is for me to benefit from, not Lenovo. The same is true with someone buying a piece of artwork. They paid for that artwork, and the reward for investing in that artwork and recognizing its potential is that it helps to add value to the artwork, which they profit from when they resell it. The artist made their deal, just as Lenovo made its deal. To come back later and demand a piece of the profits for value added later makes no sense.

Filed Under: artist resale rights, artists, australia, copyright, right of first sale

Australian Law Enforcement Wants The Right To Hack Computers

from the the-modern-wiretap dept

As technology changes, so does the demands of law enforcement officials to figure out better ways to spy on your use of that technology. For example, efforts to wiretap Skype conversations has been a popular subject among law enforcement around the world. Down in Australia, the police are now looking for the right to hack your computer. At the very least, it would require a warrant, but a judge could authorize the police to hack into your computer and monitor it for up to 7 days at a time and not tell the owners for up to three years (depending on the circumstances -- and it would require several approved extensions for it to last that long). Not surprisingly, this is rather controversial, and security companies in particular have made it clear they want no part of this (i.e., they won't create backdoors) and fully expect their products to block such hacking attempts. How long until new legislation is proposed that forces security vendors to change their minds about that as well?

Filed Under: australia, hacking, law enforcement

Railroad Says Train Schedule iPhone App Violates Copyright

from the crown-copyright-strikes-again dept

Ridiculous copyright policies strike again. Phill writes in to let us know that officials from Rail Corporation NSW, a government-run organization that manages the trainlines in Sydney, Australia, are threatening an independent developer who created a super popular train schedule app for the iPhone. The group is claiming that the train schedule is copyrighted information, under Crown copyright, which (for no good reason at all) allows the government to claim copyright on things. This same issue recently came up when Crown copyright was used (abused, actually) to stop Google from providing relevant info on the deadly brushfires in Australia.

This case may be even more ridiculous. The guy created a useful app that many people want. Rather than recognizing the demand for such an app, the railroad is threatening him. Their reasoning? The app might not be accurate. Well, if that was a problem, then people would stop using it. Plus, there are easy solutions: give him access to the real-time data and/or create your own damn iPhone app.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, crown copyright, train schedule
Companies: rail corporation nsw

Looks Like Australia's Plan To Censor The Internet Is Dead... Again... For Now

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

Australian politicians have been pushing a variety of schemes to censor the internet for years... and each time they waste millions of taxpayer dollars before they discover that the plan doesn't work, at all. Yet... they keep trying. The most recent plan involved some "tests" where ISPs would be forced to block a secret blacklist of sites -- which many ISPs pointed out was stupid and wouldn't work. While some politicians are still insisting it's necessary, it looks like there is no longer enough support in the Australian Senate to pass the law that would make such filtering mandatory. In other words, it's yet another costly Australian censorship plan down the drain. Until the next one, of course.

Filed Under: australia, censorship

Australian Copyright Laws Stymied Google Bushfire Map Overview

from the what's-the-purpose-of-copyright-again? dept

In the US, any documents produced by the federal government are in the public domain and not covered by copyright. However, that's not necessarily true in other countries. Australia, for one, has the concept of Crown copyright, where the government retains copyright on its documents. Sometimes that creates ridiculous scenarios, such as last week, when Google was trying to create a map overlay of useful information about the extent of the massive Australian bushfires that killed hundreds. Instead of being able to map all of the fires, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment denied Google's request to get data needed to plot the fire's location on public lands, citing Crown copyright. Yes, it appears the government blocked this useful resource because of copyright issues.

Filed Under: australia, bushfire, crown copyright, google maps
Companies: google