Australian Government Considers Copying UK Copyright Law Ideas 190
msim brings word that Australian legislators are considering an anti-piracy measure that would require ISPs to terminate internet access for people who repeatedly download copyrighted material. The legislation would set up a three-strikes system similar to the one proposed in the UK recently. While British ISPs resisted suggestions that they act as internet police, the response may not be the same in Australia, where the government has already tried to censor the internet.
"Under the three-strikes policy, a warning would be first issued to offenders who illegally share files using peer-to-peer technology to access music, TV shows and movies free of charge. The second strike would lead to the offender's internet access being suspended; the third would cancel the offender's internet access."
So what happens when they cut of half the country? (Score:3, Interesting)
fail (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't we all download copyright material? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure articles too, which some blogs insist on quoting in near entirety to get traffic.
Why should other mediums get special treatment under the law?
Re:fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Using tools like encryption only help mitigate the symptoms in the short term. We need to see a change in ideology overall, not just in the electorate, but in the leadership.
Seems like an awful lot of fluff (Score:3, Interesting)
Rudd wants to get broadband to more homes not less, and most governments know stuff like this would be wildly unpopular, and the ISPs have exactly the same financial reasons(increased monitoring costs, loss of revenue from cancelled subscriptions, potential repercussions from improper cancelations), so are just as likely to fight.
Personally I doubt even the Brits who have a much more invasive approach towards their citizens than we do are going to pass something like this, it's political suicide to try and save something that probably can't be saved.
Simple workaround (Score:1, Interesting)
Next, register the DNS of your site to be ftp.companyname.com and if they complain say "yes, that's where my customers upload their high resolution nautical maps to, for my research into deep sea excavation"
Of course, I strongly suspect ISPs will work it like this:
If downloads > x then
you_are_a_pirate
end if
Re:Why shouldnt we do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
A mitigation of possible or theoretical financial losses could be had through something like a generalized tax on recording media like CD-ROMs and tape cassettes that we have here in Canada. This is of course not ideal for the consumer or any industry groups seeking compensation, but it is a more fair compromise than the overbearing and arbitrary punishments given to P2P violators. Making these taxes fair and appropriate is the most difficult and contentious thing however; for example people these days don't generally copy records onto tape anymore, and yet the tax is still applied to tapes, and at the same rate at which it was originally applied.
Merely seeking to punish behavior, and arguably behavior that does not have an intuitive or natural feeling of being wrong (like armed robbery) is an overbearing and unfair approach.
Re:So what happens when they cut of half the count (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that we (bombarded by advertisements and brand name awareness) are supposed to know all the brand names and the associated prices. I call that bullshit. I just don't care. I never have. And I never will. I am buying functionality, not brands. If a pair of sunglasses works for me I don't care about the name that is printed on them. I wouldn't pay more if I remember an ad I saw for the name.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
More, if they don't all enforce at the same time.
It will be interesting to see what kind of checks and balances are built into this proposed law. For example, will it be necessary for a court to find that a user has downloaded something in order for penalties to apply, or will a mere accusation be sufficient?
Who will be checking the bona-fides of the person or organisation making the complaint? Sometimes the complainant doesn't actually have the rights which they say they have.
Re:fail (Score:2, Interesting)
On the third warning, they'll disconnect you.
Re:fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't you then sue the living daylights out of them for falsely accusing you?
What if it was built into BitTorrent clients as a kind of mass protest to connect to but not download from random swarms? Would this cause any problems for those actually wishing to use the torrent properly?
Sure they could monitor for people actually receiving data from them hence actually using the torrent properly but it'd be a hell of a lot more hassle for them no?