Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Australia are under pressure recently by both the music industry and the government to filter/block illegal downloads and pornography. The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) presented a plan in which ISPs in the country would cut off "repeat offenders", but the Internet providers have some major concerns about it.
While the ISPs say that they respect content providers and condemn piracy (as an illegal use of their networks), they don't want to become an enforcement agency for content providers. The IIA sent a letter to the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA), its Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) arm and AFACT highlighting several problems with the proposal.
The ISPs believe that the Australian court system is adequate for the enforcement needs of copyright owners. Also, they are not in a position to judge when provided with an IP address from an organization like AFACT whether the subscriber is guilty of infringement or not. The IIA believes that a court must make a finding of infringement before a subscriber could be labeled as a repeat offender.
"The distinction between an infringer and an alleged infringer has been raised as an important legal standard which ought not be undermined by us," argues the letter. AFACT does not see it that way of course. "It's a very simple, reasonable, cost effective, practical thing for them to do," AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic told The Sydney Morning Herald.
Pecotic also said that the ISPs would be justified in disconnecting the subscribers that are flagged by AFACT as their terms of service and agreements forbid the use of their networks for illegal activities. Along with the pressure from the music industry, the ISPs are also getting heat from the government over pornography.
Earlier this month, ISPs were forced to hand out filtering software to subscribers so that impressionable eyes do not see such content. However, the IIA issued a press release saying that filters are no substitute for parental involvement and supervision of a child's use of the Internet. The IIA's stance received backing when 16 year old Tom Wood beat the filter in about 30 minutes, making it appear it was still operating properly.
After news of Wood's curcumvention of the measures, politicians decided that ISPs should also have to filter on their servers. "You need both," Sen. Steve Fielding told the Herald Sun. "You need it as the ISP and the PC level." The ISPs did not agree and do not want to take part in such a system, even if it is only provided to subscribers who ask for it.
"The IIA is disappointed that there remain calls by some political parties for mandatory internet level filtering—particularly in the lead up to the election where the policy environment is heated," the group said in a statement. However, not all politicians believe in the almighty filter system either. "Unfortunately, no single measure can protect children from online harm," Communications Minister Helen Coonan told the Herald Sun. "Traditional parenting skills have never been more important."
Source:
Ars Technica
The ISPs believe that the Australian court system is adequate for the enforcement needs of copyright owners. Also, they are not in a position to judge when provided with an IP address from an organization like AFACT whether the subscriber is guilty of infringement or not. The IIA believes that a court must make a finding of infringement before a subscriber could be labeled as a repeat offender.
"The distinction between an infringer and an alleged infringer has been raised as an important legal standard which ought not be undermined by us," argues the letter. AFACT does not see it that way of course. "It's a very simple, reasonable, cost effective, practical thing for them to do," AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic told The Sydney Morning Herald.
Pecotic also said that the ISPs would be justified in disconnecting the subscribers that are flagged by AFACT as their terms of service and agreements forbid the use of their networks for illegal activities. Along with the pressure from the music industry, the ISPs are also getting heat from the government over pornography.
Earlier this month, ISPs were forced to hand out filtering software to subscribers so that impressionable eyes do not see such content. However, the IIA issued a press release saying that filters are no substitute for parental involvement and supervision of a child's use of the Internet. The IIA's stance received backing when 16 year old Tom Wood beat the filter in about 30 minutes, making it appear it was still operating properly.
After news of Wood's curcumvention of the measures, politicians decided that ISPs should also have to filter on their servers. "You need both," Sen. Steve Fielding told the Herald Sun. "You need it as the ISP and the PC level." The ISPs did not agree and do not want to take part in such a system, even if it is only provided to subscribers who ask for it.
"The IIA is disappointed that there remain calls by some political parties for mandatory internet level filtering—particularly in the lead up to the election where the policy environment is heated," the group said in a statement. However, not all politicians believe in the almighty filter system either. "Unfortunately, no single measure can protect children from online harm," Communications Minister Helen Coonan told the Herald Sun. "Traditional parenting skills have never been more important."
Source:
Ars Technica
