Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AU Gov't Still Wants ISPs To Solve Illegal Downloads

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the beaten-but-not-defeated dept.

Government 218

bennyboy64 writes "Australia's Minister for Communications wants internet providers and the film industry to sit down and work out a solution to stop illegal movie downloads, despite a judge ruling in favor of an internet provider not being responsible for policing illegal downloads. The film studios first dragged internet provider iiNet into the Federal Court back in November 2008, arguing that the ISP infringed copyright by failing to take reasonable steps — including enforcing its own terms and conditions — to prevent customers from copying films and TV shows over its network."

cancel ×

218 comments

Here's an idea.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052294)

Flood torrent trackers with episodes of Neighbors.

- NS

Re:Here's an idea.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052310)

There's a pubic hair on my keyboard. What the fuck?? I "mow the lawn" so it's not mine. Gross.

Re:Here's an idea.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052358)

Sorry.

That was me.

Re:Here's an idea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052312)

No repeats of "The Crocodile Hunter" as then people might just leech it... might

Re:Here's an idea.. (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053234)

And here's another idea:

There's a federal election coming up some time this year, and unless I'm mistaken, Conroy's seat will be up for grabs. (Federal Senate terms are for 6 years except in the case of a double dissolution.) How about the Communications Minister gets kicked out of his office? It is obvious enough to everybody that he is utterly incompetent, and that his accomplishments are better suited to running an ice-cream van.

Disclaimer: I support his party at elections, in the absence of a more sane alternative.

Re:Here's an idea.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053632)

And here's another idea:

There's a federal election coming up some time this year, and unless I'm mistaken, Conroy's seat will be up for grabs. (Federal Senate terms are for 6 years except in the case of a double dissolution.) How about the Communications Minister gets kicked out of his office? It is obvious enough to everybody that he is utterly incompetent, and that his accomplishments are better suited to running an ice-cream van.

Disclaimer: I support his party at elections, in the absence of a more sane alternative.

So , you hate him enough to keep him in office ?

Re:Here's an idea.. (1)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054042)

Conroy's seat will be up for grabs

Except he's at the top of the Labor Senate ticket. If Labor get any Senators from Victoria, he'll get back in.

Re:Here's an idea.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31055136)

Do you have any idea how Senate voting works? I'm guessing, from your post, that the answer is no - so here's a brief rundown.

Given a population of N people in the voting region for a set of Senate seats (there's never just one Senate seat up for grabs; it's always going to be two, six, or twelve seats), and X seats up for grabs, a "quota" is defined as N/(X+1)+1 votes, rounded down - so, for example, if N is 25,823 and X is 6, the quota is (25,823/7) or 3670 votes. Or, if N is 34,562 and N is 2, the quota is (34562/3) or 11,521 votes.

In order to win a Senate seat, the party has to gain a quota of votes. If the party gains two quotas, they get two Senate seats, and so on. In Conroy's case, he is the first candidate on Labor's Victorian Senate ticket - so if Labor gets a quota in Victoria, he's in. Doesn't matter how many quotas Labor gets, if they get just one, he's in. (I'm blithely ignoring the intricacies in how leftover votes are distributed in the preferences, as that detail is not really relevant to this discussion.)

Now tell me - what do you think are the odds that Labor doesn't get a Senate quota in this year's Federal election?

In short: we're not going to be able to get Conroy voted out. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

Re:Here's an idea.. (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055170)

Nobody would grab the obviously fake torrents of Neighbours.

Maybe it's time for real reform? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052300)

I think it's high time we took copyright thieves to task and put them in jail for their fraud. They're actively undermining the works of artists and that's going to cause a long term effect on culture. We need for these sniveling twits to stop their illegal activities.

Re:Maybe it's time for real reform? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052454)

you're trying too hard, it's just obvious

Re:Maybe it's time for real reform? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052478)

You seriously want to put people in jail for copyright infringement? So, someone downloads a 0.99$USD song illegally and you make a government waste thousands of dollars for this person?

It would be less trouble and cost exponentially less for the copyright holder to ask the local government for the retail price of each illegally downloaded copyrighted material than to jail them.

In other words, get real. Copyright infringement doesn't deserve jail nor does it deserve thousands and millions of dollars in damages.

There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?

Re:Maybe it's time for real reform? (4, Funny)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052696)

There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?

I thought we were here to politely discuss copyrights, and then you go and bring logic and facts and fairness into this. Clearly you've never negotiated with **AA's before.

Re:Maybe it's time for real reform? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053492)

The premise of this argument is flawed.

If a government won't waste tax payer money jailing a $0.99 cent music theft offender, then will:

A. The goverment abuse tax money by putting a $0.99 cent offender in jail?

B. The goverment put a $0.99 offender in an outsourced prison system and take a kick back?

If you answer yes to A or B, the notion that governments don't waste tax payer money is demolished.

Re:Maybe it's time for real reform? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052970)

No, you got it wrong. By "copyright thieves", he meant those who use the corrupt law to ownership of divulged info. They are the real thieves, and should be hanged from the highest tree.

There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?

The value of an object is proportional to its scarcity, both natural and artificial. Copyright is an example of the artificial.

Jail for Downloads? See ACTA (1)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054090)

You seriously want to put people in jail for copyright infringement? So, someone downloads a 0.99$USD song illegally and you make a government waste thousands of dollars for this person?

Not him, but ACTA will do this. Interesting thing about ACTA is that the Kopyright Kartel Kompanies blame the secrecy on govermnents, and they blame one another. When kids start drawing prison terms for downloading 99-cent songs, the Kartel will claim they didn't want it and governments will claim they didn't want it, either. So kids will go to jail for 99-cent downloads ... because nobody wants it. From Michael Geist's summary of the October 2008 negotiations here [michaelgeist.ca]

Day one focuses on criminal enforcement. The U.S. and Japan supply draft text of the criminal enforcement provisions. The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines ..."

Ain't that grand? Nobody wants it, but it's coming. But its all a secret because nobody wants it to be secret either. Liars.

Re:Maybe it's time for real reform? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054116)

It would be less trouble and cost exponentially less for the copyright holder to ask the local government for the retail price of each illegally downloaded copyrighted material than to jail them.
In other words, get real. Copyright infringement doesn't deserve jail nor does it deserve thousands and millions of dollars in damages.


Why should government do anything at all. Even if this really was a "lost sale" any actual losses would be lower than the retail price. People (including "corporate people") who are subject to thefts or frauds of much greater amounts can claim only from private insurers. Quite often government, in the personage of law enforcement, are uninterested in doing much actual investigation unless the amount of money involved is at least tens of thousands to millions of times greater than that involved here.

And I hereby request (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052306)

that the Australian Government and all the potential murderers and all the potential murder victims sit down and work out a solution to stop murder from ever taking place in Australia.

Re:And I hereby request (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053148)

Wait, doesn't that make the ISP guilty in your analogy? In your equating of illegal downloads and murder, the ISPs are the equivalent of the murderers.

Re:And I hereby request (4, Insightful)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053560)

No, the ISPs are the people who build and maintain the roads on which murderers travel to their victims' houses. Or maybe they're the people who sell cooking knives. Or maybe they're the people who provide alcohol to unstable people who then get mad and murder someone.

Equally, you could say that the ISPs are like the owners of Xerox machines, which allow people to make unauthorised copies of copyrighted materials. Or maybe they're like libraries, which allow people to read copyrighted material for free.

The point, I think, is that there is no good analogy for the roles of the parties in this kind of "crime" because it's the result of a pretty much unprecedented set of circumstances related to advances in technology.

Re:And I hereby request (5, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053190)

Isn't it more like, people are complaining about telephone-related fraud, so would the telephone company please listen to EVERY SINGLE phone conversation, and then report to the police all the calls that are fraud-related.

Re:And I hereby request (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054360)

Assuming that none of the people at the endpoints of those phone calls (and especially not the people with something to hide) ever figure out the concept of a cryptographic tunnel, that's a GREAT idea!

Re:And I hereby request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053806)

That solution is fairly easy to accomplish: Stop being stupid about copyright law, and we won't murder any politicians.

About Want... (4, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052332)

Let's make grocers responsible for planet-wide obesity.
Lets make foundrys responsible for gun related crime.
Sounds like Australia has a silly tit in office.
Like the old saying goes, and I believe it applies here in spite of its coarseness, "sh*t in one hand, and want in the other, then see which hand fills up first."

You joke (2, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052394)

But that very thing is slowly taking place, first in the fast food industry.

Re:You joke (1)

jaeson (563206) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052908)

But that very thing is slowly taking place, first in the fast food industry.

You mean shitting in one hand?

Re:You joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054724)

But that very thing is slowly taking place, first in the fast food industry.

You mean shitting in one hand?

Don't be absurd. You know perfectly well that all the shit that they can get their hands on goes between two pieces of bread.

Dont forget hammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052580)

we need Canadian tires and all stores like it responsible for all those hammers smacking people up the head.
OH wait maybe we need a few hammer sales around parliaments EVERYWHERE.

Not My Problem? (5, Interesting)

smd75 (1551583) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052344)

What part of a court ordered "Not My Problem" does the AU politicians not understand about policing illegal downloads?

I dunno, I think the ISPs could use this as leverage against the studios to really pay up. Almost to extortion, but legal.

Want us to police your content, we dont, but if you offer good enough incentive, we might make an effort to work with you, but we dont really have to.

Re:Not My Problem? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052386)

He who has the money makes the rules. And apparently that isn't the ISPs down there.

Re:Not My Problem? (4, Insightful)

grimJester (890090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052594)

Politicians make the laws. They can't just shrug and say "The courts already decided the issue".

That said, the ISPs have no incentive to spend money policing their customers. I don't think the studios are prepared to pay for any filtering either. Despite what they claim, they don't see piracy as a big enough money drain that spending loads of cash on ISP level policing would be worth it. Piracy is just an excuse to get tighter copyright laws.

Re:Not My Problem? (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054950)

Politicians make the laws. They can't just shrug and say "The courts already decided the issue".
 

The comm. minister "wanting" something != "making the laws"

Re:Not My Problem? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052912)

Which part of "Politicians can change the laws when they don't like court interpretations of existing laws" do you not understand?

Re:Not My Problem? (1)

haruharaharu (443975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053762)

Some laws are easier to change than others; for instance, if it's declared that lying about military service to get laid can't be made a crime due to the first amendment here, changing that law will be pretty much impossible. Passing a law making ISPs liable for the actions of their customers may be a lot simpler, but it may not be, depending on why they're currently unable to hold them accountable. Also, you get some nice unintended consequences most of the time - they really should ask themselves whether this is a law that needs to be written, but they never do.

Re:Not My Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053426)

Perhaps the music/movie industry should setup their own ISP.

O wait, nobody in their right mind would join an ISP owned by the music/movie industry - they wouldn't set one up without port throttling, IP blocking (torrent sites etc.) and intrusive deep packet inspection. You would have guaranteed absolute zero privacy without using encryption for communication, which they would probably disallow.

It Seems... (2, Insightful)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052374)

It seems that law is not going to deter them from getting their way...

Re:It Seems... (2)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052708)

When law gets in the way of making money hand over fist, the obvious solution is to change the laws, isn't it?

Re:It Seems... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053306)

When law gets in the way of making money hand over fist, the obvious solution is to change the laws, isn't it?

That's probably what's going to happen in any case, once the appeals process has been exhausted - i.e. the Golden Rule being that who has the gold makes the rules.

Only one way (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052376)

TPM/DRM at the board level and require special clients ( like netzero ) to be inserted into your IP stack. You cant have ANY file that isn't approved by the 'key server'. Even your lowly diary has to be approved, let alone music, books, movies, games, applications. Connect online without your trusty TPM enabled client, you get reported.

Great way to kill off free speech too, that old non DRM'd PDF of Mein Kampf you legally bought off Amazon years ago is no longer permitted, AND you get reported the next time you try to view it off your backup CDROM copy.

That will make way to much e-waste and take a long (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052512)

That will make way to much e-waste and take a long time to roll out and may even need the gov to shell out big time funds to pay for it all.

Re:That will make way to much e-waste and take a l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052798)

So it'll happen, what, in the next 5 years or so; that's what you're saying?

Re:That will make way to much e-waste and take a l (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053770)

They are doing it with Digital TV now, so don't discount it happening sooner then one would think.

But I don't see a Digital TV box to make you old s (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053796)

But I don't see a Digital TV box to make you old system work thing coming and will they have to replace all kinds of switch routers and other stuff as well?

How about mills and other systems that may still need pc's with ISA cards to run and other real old software that does not work with vista / 7 much less any new drm system?

Who will pay to real a office with 500 systems?

and unlike the tv thing few systems to day even come with this drm system build in.

Re:Only one way (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053090)

Even your lowly diary has to be approved, let alone music, books, movies, games, applications. Connect online without your trusty TPM enabled client, you get reported.

Don't you think that's a bit much? Obviously they'd let you store a few small unapproved files on your machine, oh, say ten files, each with a maximum of 1000 characters.

Re:Only one way (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053186)

Oh, no, what they'd do is when you try to save the file it gets sent to some unelected, unaccountable office for approval, and if it is approved you'd get to see it again. Maybe even on a government approved website. And if not, that's when you get some unexpected visitors and take an indefinite vacation to an undetermined location.

Re:Only one way (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053238)

Sadly enough, they could probably pull something like that off if they say something along the lines "It will also check for Child Pornography".

How and What purpose? (1)

no added value (1734096) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052402)

Doesn't Au have more pressing matters to address in its country? I think so. This is just another ploy to generate more lawyer jobs that bollocks up yet another world icon-www. GET a REAL LIFE au- Don't be so pitiful.

Re:How and What purpose? (2, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052438)

Indeed, Australia, YOU'RE PITIFUL! [weirdal.com] (scroll down for access to a free and legal copyrighted song).

Re:How and What purpose? (2, Informative)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052502)

Australia needs to harden the f*** up [youtube.com] !

Re:How and What purpose? (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055126)

How ironic that you would censor yourself there=P

Re:How and What purpose? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052622)

(scroll down for access to a free and legal copyrighted song).

I would, but I refuse to listen to legal music, on principal. ;^)

Oh - alright. You've got me curious - I'll do it just this once. I hope Jesus forgives me . . .

Re:How and What purpose? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054024)

Doesn't Au have more pressing matters to address in its country? I think so. This is just another ploy to generate more lawyer jobs that bollocks up yet another world icon-www. GET a REAL LIFE au- Don't be so pitiful.

I suspect that Australia has the same problem that many other countries have. That is far too many career politicians...

How long until the next election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052460)

You know where this will lead? The politicians will try to use 'child porn' as a root access password to the legal system.

Re:How long until the next election (1)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052612)

You say it like they already haven't ala Conroy's internet filter. His primary argument is filtering child porn when it's well known from leaked ACMA blacklists that a hell of a lot of it isn't child porn... Also, next election is next year at the latest.

Total Internet Criminality (3, Insightful)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052462)

Why not make the Internet itself illegal! Then they can slowly decriminalize individual ports and protocols with special identifications until they have complete control over everything.

Once that's done, nothing illegal will happen and all their citizens will be happy drones.

Re:Total Internet Criminality (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052928)

Because there was not a single crime committed before the internet existed.

How did Australia get its initial European inhabitants again?

Re:Total Internet Criminality (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052980)

Didn't work in East Germany after the wall went up. More people simply disappeared or were ratted out by their neighbors for being 'subversive'.

Gah - somebody stop this ridiculous man (5, Insightful)

GrubLord (1662041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052534)

It's not representational government when you blindly push your personal agenda against the objections of just about every stakeholder and expert in the system.

I wish Steven Conroy would hurry up and get caught looking at naughty pics of Miranda Kerr on the (uncensored) Internet during a newscast and fired, so the free world can stop giggling at all these Australian human rights violations and we can all get back to being the relaxed outback heroes people used to think of us as.

Re:Gah - somebody stop this ridiculous man (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053474)

...and we can all get back to being the relaxed outback heroes people used to think of us as.

Trouble is, while our Prime Minister is such an insufferable prig, that's never going to happen. How I miss Paul Keating. At least he was fun.

Amish Internet (2, Interesting)

Max_W (812974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052556)

Since there is no need for a plastic disk, box, paper cover, physical transportation, guarding, air-conditioning, etc. the price of a movie via download should be really attractive.

But I cannot find a place to download movies and serials legally an conveniently. I saw some sites but they often say that this movie is not for a download in your country. Or a price is really expensive.

Would it have been possible to forbid cars on early 20th century? It seems that it wouldn't, but there are Amish people who still do not use cars in their villages and towns.

Maybe the Internet without movies and serials downloads is also possible. Sort of an Amish Internet.

The Amish are not forbidden from driving cars (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053038)

The Amish are not forbidden from driving cars, they do not want to. Big difference.

And I am fairly certain that the movie industry does NOT want to follow the Amish example as the Amish do not watch movies either.

What amazes me is how clearly corrupt politicians are in this area. It is clear that the people do not want it, so why do they try so damned hard? You don't see them try nearly so hard in say restricting petrol usage. So what is the money eh I mean motivator?

Why have talks when you won in court? (5, Insightful)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052598)

Why should the ISPs enter into talks when they've already won in court?

Re:Why have talks when you won in court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052656)

because the courts cant rewrite the laws, only interpret them

Re:Why have talks when you won in court? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052850)

Why should the ISPs enter into talks when they've already won in court?

You can win as many times as you like in court, if the legislature doesn't like the verdicts being given in court they'll pass laws to change future verdicts.

Re:Why have talks when you won in court? (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052894)

Why should the ISPs enter into talks when they've already won in court?

<whine style=3 year old>Because I want them too! And if they don't I'm going to stamp my feet and cry! And, and, and my pet MP is going to pass a law and MAKE them.</whine>

Re:Why have talks when you won in court? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053518)

Because the legislature can rewrite the laws out from under you, which would make your court judgment so much toilet paper. Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights; if the legislature passes a law that says, "This is the way it is," the court doesn't have any choice but to agree.

Not even attempting to police its internet traffic (4, Insightful)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052674)

...seems to be what saved this ISP in court.
For reasons other than network integrity, any surveillance or manipulation of users' data, such as port-blocking, DNS (or simply ToS) censorship, [cough]Phorm[/cough] or Deep Packet Inspection in general lead down a road to perdition, as courts will show little mercy with defendants who through their own actions have themselves conceded (even though inaccurately, as there are still e.g. VPNs) the feasibility of the plaintiffs' outlandish demands.

Re:Not even attempting to police its internet traf (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052866)

Not true, they have a disconnect policy for people who have used their network outside the TOS and infringing copyright is certainly on that list.

The problem is that they were never provided with a customer who had been found guilty of infringing copyright, only allegations that had not been proven in a court of law... so they did the only sensible thing, they forwarded the allegations of crime to the police and waited for the justice system to arrive at a verdict... none were forthcoming (AFAIK).

The content owners are trying to bypass the judiciary, effectively being judge jury and executioner and on top of that want the ISPs to play gamekeeper for them too... what cheek.

Re:Not even attempting to police its internet traf (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053562)

It's not so much conceding the feasibility, as it is that the courts tend to take a black and white view of any communications carrier's responsibilities. Either you're responsible for what goes over the communication channels or not. If you don't fool with any of your customer's communications, that's cool. You haven't taken responsibility for the content, and you can't be held accountable for it. But the minute you start censoring people's messages, then you've picked up that ball and it's yours now. You have to take responsibility for it, 100%.

Not even attempting to police its internet traffic (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054518)

If you don't fool with any of your customer's communications, that's cool. You haven't taken responsibility for the content, and you can't be held accountable for it. But the minute you start censoring people's messages, then you've picked up that ball and it's yours now. You have to take responsibility for it, 100%.

One might also say that other people's traffic is a can of worms best served closed. ;-)

The moment the messenger allows itself even a sneak peek into it, let alone tries to "improve" it in whatever way, it'll find out that curiosity kills not just cats, but also ISPs at lawyerpoint.

Highway authorities responsibel for drug trade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052750)

By the same measure Australia should hold the various highway authorities responsible for all of the illegal traffic in drugs, bootleg CDs, and so on, that is carried on the roads.

Governments fail again... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052808)

Again the people in charge of the country show their complete ignorance of the Internet.

Short of pulling out the cable there is no possible technical solution to stop people copying files across the Internet because that's what it's for.

You might be able to defeat the current generation of P2P programs but it's 100% certain that the programs will adapt.

Here's a better idea: Force the movie/music industries to provide an attractive/convenient alternative at a realistic price. eg. You pay $2 to watch a movie on demand.

Re:Governments fail again... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052974)

> Again the people in charge of the country show their complete ignorance of
> the Internet.

Do not attribute to ignorance that which can readily be explained by malice.

Re:Governments fail again... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053744)

Again the people in charge of the country show their complete ignorance of the Internet.

You could probably "most things" for "the Internet" and the statement would still be true. That's a somewhat fundermental problem with career politicians, these people tend to be out of touch with the "real world".

Short of pulling out the cable there is no possible technical solution to stop people copying files across the Internet because that's what it's for.

It isn't even necessary to have a "cable" either :)

Here's a better idea: Force the movie/music industries to provide an attractive/convenient alternative at a realistic price. eg. You pay $2 to watch a movie on demand.

Another idea would be to tell the industries that if the song/TV/movie/etc isn't available in Australia then any "piracy" is their own stupid fault for not sorting out things with the Australian radio/TV stations and cinemas.

Who is he working for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052870)

Even after court battles, public out-cry over censorship and business explaining how some of his ideas are not feasable this minister still pushes. Who is he actually working for ? (or hopes to work for after his political career tanks)

Prove I would have bought it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052986)

... before suing me for the price.

The Media Idiots don't get it - if the only choice for obtaining their product was to pay for it they'd end up selling less and not making the record-breaking profits they are now because their products would not get as much exposure as they do.

PIRACY GIVES PRODUCT EXPOSURE.

Call it 'Good Faith Advertising' - Media releases a product, it gets pirated - pirates like it - next product gets bought by those pirates who 1) have the money to do so and 2) can get the product at a FAIR price.

I think the biggest Media fear is that when they release crap products consumers will find out it's crap before purchasing it (through piracy) - since we're having more and more retailers saying 'once opened you can't return' WE would be screwed, but THEY would make Money.

PIRACY is therefore in the best interests of Both the consumer AND the producer SO LONG AS THE PRODUCER IS RELEASING A QUALITY PRODUCT ;)

Re:Prove I would have bought it... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054224)

The Media Idiots don't get it - if the only choice for obtaining their product was to pay for it they'd end up selling less and not making the record-breaking profits they are now because their products would not get as much exposure as they do.

They are only "idiots" if they believe their own propaganda...

My My (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053002)

The Slashdot crowd demonstrates once again woeful ignorance and a biased perspective that is just as bad as the one they berate the corporations from having.

See, even if the court ruled that the law says one thing, it doesn't mean that the result is just or immutable. Laws get changed. Laws sometimes need to be changed. Courts are conservative, they interpret and react, not set a new path. Legislatures are proactive, they set the pace, they change the tune when circumstances change.

So the corporations are lobbying the politicians. Go figure. Don't like it? Go do it yourself.

Three strikes (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053008)

So, does he think they should lose their driver's license for buying pirated CDs?

Don't you see?! (4, Insightful)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053116)

Hollywood just had its highest box office year EVER! Clearly piracy is taking a huge toll, and... ...uh... wait...

Re:Don't you see?! (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053764)

Hollywood just had its highest box office year EVER! Clearly piracy is taking a huge toll, and... ...uh... wait...

But they believe that they'd be making even more without "piracy". This being an issue of faith.
You can't argue faith with logic or even facts.

Safe harbor made the Internet possible (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053140)

Here's what the movie, record industry and politicians don't get:

Safe harbor and peer to peer networking made the Internet possible.

The clueless leading the cluelesser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053242)

I love it when clueless amateurs try to solve an NP-hard problem like this. Actually, I hate it because they end up foisting their ignorance on our shoulders and out of our pocketbooks. I say, let the recording industry pay ALL of the costs for this activity if they are that convinced it can be done. As a software engineer and member of the IEEE with 30 years experience including the design and implementation of distributed large-scale high-reliability systems in use world-wide, publication in technical academic text books, given invited research papers at very high-brow technical conferences, and awarded US patents for adaptive systems, I think they are blowing smoke out of their you-know-wheres.

And I want a pony. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053248)

Either you can have illegal downloads and the Internet, or you can have neither. Your choice.

Reality check, folks (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053298)

Piracy will stop, eventually. One way or another.

It might be a grand awakening in people all over the planet that taking stuff without paying is just somehow wrong. Unfortunately, we have been training an entire generation that taking whateve is laying around unguarded is the right thing to do. So I don't see this happening anytime soon.

It might be that worthwhile content is just not being created except in ways that make piracy impossible. The motivation to do this would come from the simple truth that people that pirate aren't going to pay, ever. And as Internet speeds increase and the breadth and depth of materials available steadily increase, more and more people will take advantage of the endless bounty that is available for free. Pirating Misha Reedy's performances [youtube.com] probably isn't all that high on anyone's list - and besides, people like that want their materials to be distributed far and wide so everyone can appreciate their talent.

It is unlikely that the RIAA, MPAA and other organizations like them are going to be able to stamp out piracy no matter how many lawsuits they file.

However, the real possibility to look out for is government intervention. It is simple economics. Not only are there fewer sales due to piracy but even more so there are fewer taxes paid. You might be able to convince the government that less money for a record company is important and worth devoting the government's attention to through law enforcement and other means, but it is probably far more interesting to governments in general that their tax income is being reduced. Slightly, this is true, but the decrease is still there. In today's economic times do you really believe a government isn't interested in spending $10 to get $1 more in tax revenue?

So what people should be concerned about is that governments mandate ISPs and others to stamp out piracy - any way they can. With government-mandated accountability to show statistics to faceless government bureaucrats to prove that they are having an effect. This might actually accomplish the goal of eliminating piracy - along with a good portion of the so-called freedom to pirate that seems to be present with the Internet today.

Will the government do this? Quite possibly. Would it be a good thing? Hardly. But while your friends are grabbing all the free stuff they can it is something to think about.

Re:Reality check, folks (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053946)

Piracy will stop, eventually. One way or another.

Well it will certainly stop when there are no more humans around.

It might be a grand awakening in people all over the planet that taking stuff without paying is just somehow wrong.

Before that expect announcements that Qantas will put pigs in the cockpits of their aircraft, several hundred British MPs will appologise for overclaiming expenses, etc :)

It might be that worthwhile content is just not being created except in ways that make piracy impossible.

It would be easier to do things in ways that "piracy" is simply irrelevent.

The motivation to do this would come from the simple truth that people that pirate aren't going to pay, ever.

That's more a motivation to stop making any kind of fuss about it. Certainly to stop wasting money don't anything about it.

However, the real possibility to look out for is government intervention. It is simple economics. Not only are there fewer sales due to piracy but even more so there are fewer taxes paid.

Even if "piracy" means that people are not spending money buying content, which is itself questionable, this does not mean that people are spending less of their "disposable income". It's even possible that if people pay less money to big media for tax revenue to increase.

You might be able to convince the government that less money for a record company is important and worth devoting the government's attention to through law enforcement and other means, but it is probably far more interesting to governments in general that their tax income is being reduced. Slightly, this is true, but the decrease is still there. In today's economic times do you really believe a government isn't interested in spending $10 to get $1 more in tax revenue?

Plenty of governments already do (and have been doing for decades) this kind of thing . e.g. with drug prohibition. Where it's apparently acceptable to spend vast amounts of public money and ensure that what could be revenue from taxation goes into the hands of criminal gangs.

Re:Reality check, folks (1)

swilver (617741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054294)

However, the real possibility to look out for is government intervention. It is simple economics. Not only are there fewer sales due to piracy but even more so there are fewer taxes paid.

And all that money is going to end up on saving accounts or simply disappear into thin air?

No, of course not. It is going to be spend on other *luxury* goods. It is infact highly likely that money spend in such way will actually be better for the economy than spending it on a product that is basically going to end up filling the pockets of the very rich. Oh, it will end up there eventually anyway, but the more steps in between before it reaches those people the better for the economy.

Also, if you think piracy can be stamped out, even WITH government help, than you need a reality check yourself. How do you prevent a digital good from being traded and replicated? How do you prevent people swapping USB sticks? Harddisks? Mailing each other cd/dvd/blu-ray discs?

There's only one way, complete loss of privacy and full government oversight of everything you do. Anything less, and piracy... or more accurately, the free market, will just find a way to do it anyway.

It's no big loss. Even if this means the end of movies and music, there's plenty out there already to last a lifetime. Old "entertainment" is the industries own worst enemy. It's no wonder they don't want it the end up in the public domain.

this is simple (4, Insightful)

Bobtree (105901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053472)

Technical approaches do not solve social problems.

There is a trivial way to resolve illegal downloading.

Legalize it.

Re:this is simple (1)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054190)

Alternatively, the media kartels could just quit producing digital content. Why should the rest of the world be denied use of the net, when they could stop this by keeping THEIR movies on film and THEIR music on vinyl. Then the rest of us could produce our own digital images, movies, and music and the kartels could pirate us. However, they want to have their cake and eat it, too ... and your cake ... and my cake ...

Re:this is simple (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054444)

And there is another problem. To be illegal the should be a guilty party. To be guilty, one would expect some sort of court. Courts should be run by governement. They can determine what is illegal and what not. Not some private company.

They should NOT be the ones deciding what is legal and what not.

Unreasonable and impossible (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053742)

1. It's not the ISP's responsibility to worry about what someone else is doing to their web site. If authorities have a problem, they should contact the site. Nevermind that it would be impossible to account for every deviance.
 
2. The ISP is just a conduit, they should not manipulate the traffic in any way, as this would compromise their function, which is to act as the last mile in an internet connection. They do not provide the content. Should I sue the city because their streets can lead me to illegal activities?
 
3. The users and the hosts of the content (not the ISP) should be charged based on their involvement.

Australia's Minister of Communications... (1)

Patman64 (1622643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053938)

...would like his check now.

A way to loose more money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054248)

I'm certain that when ISPs begin enforcing network traffic they will gain many customers and many more movies and music will be purchased ... and pigs will fly.

Obscene Phone Calls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054270)

Telephone companies know that some of their customers make obscene phone calls. What do they do about it? Nothing!

Telephone companies do not, and are not expected to, police their customers' phone calls in anyway. People would be outraged if the law required telephone companies to listen in on everyone's phone calls, just in case they were making an obscene phone call.

Why are ISPs treated differently? Why is it *not* OK to listen in on peoples phone calls (even though some of the phone calls might break the law), but it is OK to "listen in" on everyone`s internet connection?

In fact, with VOIP, the two go together. If your internet connection is being "listened in" on, then your phone calls are being listened in on too.

Hey Rooster, I just got this hoopy idea... (1)

Dracophile (140936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054378)

We already have a solution. It's called taking legal action against the alleged offenders.

If someone stole my car.. (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054900)

then I should sue my town for having the roads available that allowed the perp to get away.

Guns and Bullets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054932)

I think the people who make the guns should talk to the people who make the bullets to prevent murders happening...
Perhaps the people who make cars should talk to the people who make roads to stop the transport of illegal and ill-gotten goods...
Perhaps the air/sea freight companies can talk to the people who make shipping pallets to prevent the transport of drugs across borders...

Maybe, if the owners of protected and copyrighted products have evidence of a crime they can forward it to the authorities like they are supposed to.

No, the owners of the transport systems are not and can not be held responsible for all the actions of their users and even in these cases, the studios have the flimsiest of evidence which is why they prefer to directly attack, with litigation, the individual who can't defend themselves.

A company is an individual, the accused is an individual, why then is the government leaning toward the larger one in these cases? Because they are right? Because they employ people? Or just because the larger entity has a greater sense of gravity?
Stand up for your people AU government and stop abusing us and ripping us off.

Compare a city vs. an ISP (1)

neghvar1 (1705616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055110)

Lets compare a city to an ISP. A City has their network of streets and roads. An ISP has their network of wires and fiberoptics. I don't know AU's citizens right & laws, so I'll base it on the US's PROBLEM: City: If someone is selling or distributing bootleg copies of movies from their home, do you hold the city liable? ISP: If someone is selling or distributing bootleg copies of movies from their PC, do you hold the ISP liable? COUNTER_MEASURE: City: Create roadblocks at every entrance to the city with cops that will search every car that enters or exits for illegal movies. City gets in BIG trouble for violating fourth amendment. ISP: Implement expensive devices to Inspect all packets entering or exiting the ISP's network for illegal movies. Illegal wiretapping? Same laws & rights concerning data tranmission vs. voice transmission is still under debate. With VoIP on the rise, this will really stir up a storm. See my point?

Apologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31055236)

On behalf of all Australians I apologize for the level of retardation in our government. Sadly, it seems that over 50% of the voting public here are dibbling idots that think a toilet is something you drink from. It is these people that vote their fellow retards into positions of power...

Conroy and Atkinson especially think we need nappies. Conroy accuses everyone who opposes his precious defective by design Internet censorship policy of being fans of child porn. Atkinson who once said he doesn't support a r18 rating for games to protect his kids when at the time I understand that his youngest son was around 22

Once again, I'm sorry on behalf of all those voters that don't understand these Internet thingies and I pray your government doesn't use ours as a shining example.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...