Beta
×

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!

Australian ISP's To Crack Down On Piracy

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-torrents-for-you dept.

Piracy 108

xav_jones writes "The ABC is reporting that 'Australia's five major ISPs have revealed their plans to crack down on online piracy by sending warning notices to suspected illegal downloaders while assisting rights holders to pursue serial offenders through the courts.' The idea is that '[d]uring an 18-month trial, rights holders would send copyright infringement notices, including evidence of copyright infringement and the IP address involved, to ISPs who would then send "educational notices" to the internet users concerned.' Further action would entail that '[u]sers who are suspected of further copyright breaches would then receive up to three warning notices before rights holders are able to pursue court action.' This seems a gentler approach than other countries. Will it prove more effective and/or cost efficient?"

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189802)

Aussies crack down on first post. DRINK YO PRUNE JUICE

who is paying? is court precursor to all action? (4, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189814)

(1) Will nothing happen to the alleged offender (i.e. no throttling/cut-off/etc.) unless and until a court has found against him?

(2) I don't understand how a group of ISPs in cooperation with "rights holders" could get to decide when "rights holders are able to pursue court action" unless there is some legislation behind it - ideas?

(3) Would the "rights holders" be paying for the admin involved in all of this?

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (5, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189828)

You're acting like your rights matter.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (2)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192110)

Yes, it's pretty clear that the 'rights-holder' is not you. You have no rights as an individual other than the right to be screwed by the system in whatever manner they deem to be the most efficient and effective for the 'rights-holder'.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189918)

(2) I don't understand how a group of ISPs in cooperation with "rights holders" could get to decide when "rights holders are able to pursue court action" unless there is some legislation behind it - ideas?

It's called 'negotiation'.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190130)

Just to clarify, that's between ISPs and specific "rights holders" on the fate of users from the PoV of those specific "rights holders"?

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190850)

Yep.

I assume the ISPs have seen a downside to handing all their customer's asses over to the MAFIAA so they're negotiated the terms of the deal.

No legislation is needed for this sort of thing. I don't know about you but for most people and corporations, negotiation is part of everyday life.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190508)

Re: (2) ISPs in cooperation with rights holders can decide between themselves when they're able to pursue court action because that's the due process of the courts. An aggrieved party begins court proceedings against those they accuse. You know... You think someone has committed a crime against you, so you tell the police / sue them. Nothing untoward here!

Just replying to your question; Not read the article myself.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194154)

As far as I've followed the news about it last week, the answers are:
1) Nothing happens (except for the received notices), though your information will be given out after repeated offences, to allow for court action. Since the evidence is included with the notices, it should be easy to defend against incorrect claims.
2) You can't have court action without a defendant, so the right holders will need to obtain evidence and request the information from the ISP. After that, there can be a normal court case.
3) I assume this will be paid by them and the ISPs (since the ISPs are sending, and both parties save money by not going to court for every IP address).

I'm not really sure what to think of this. If three notices have a minimum time between them (eg. 1 or 2 weeks) and real evidence is required, this could work in a fair way.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195900)

group of ISPs in cooperation with "rights holders"

in the USA, they are normally one in the same.

Re:who is paying? is court precursor to all action (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38198176)

(1) Will nothing happen to the alleged offender (i.e. no throttling/cut-off/etc.) unless and until a court has found against him?

This,

Nothing can happen until there is a court ruling. I highly doubt this will make it to court. They've been sending out "infringement notices" for years but haven't sued anyone. The minute any judge with an once of intelligence (we have them in Oz) sees a US style extortion scheme, it'll be over with a huge payout for the lucky bugger who gets this judge. Also due to our libel laws, they'll be up for the same kind of inflated payments as they demand for every single false accusation.

(2) I don't understand how a group of ISPs in cooperation with "rights holders" could get to decide when "rights holders are able to pursue court action" unless there is some legislation behind it - ideas?

They haven't. What they've decided on is a notification scheme, it's up to the rights holders _alone_ to decide on what happens after that.

(3) Would the "rights holders" be paying for the admin involved in all of this?

Strongly doubt it.

This system is unenforceable and wont last long. Realistically it's at best, a ruse by ISP's to get the "rights holders" legal wolves off the back of ISP's. Under the Australian legal system, the rights holders have more to lose then all the people they could sue.

So, what... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189830)

the Aussies are becoming more like the USA, where the corporations have more rights than the citizens?

Didn't we just get the latest round of analysis showing that MafiAA "evidence" isn't worth the tissue paper it's written on?

Re:So, what... (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190656)

Actually, AU gave them corps and cartels even more rights.

In the US, they don't sue you for downloading, but for distribution. I can download anything I want to off of, say, rapidshare - all day long, right in front of the entire RIAA and MPAA's combined legal squad, and they legally can't do a damned thing about it.

Now if I used a torrent or otherwise provably uploaded copyrighted material that I had no rights to, then they'd be able to sue.

Or, maybe the summary and TFA goofed their terminology.

Re:So, what... (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191686)

Of course they could do something, you're still infringing copyright.

It's just not worth their while.

Re:So, what... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193704)

No, there has to be a commercial motive, or else it would be illegal to read a book at the library, without paying the author royalties.

I can read a book at the book store, or read a friends copy, or read over somebodys shoulder, and I have taken the information without paying for the package it came in (the book). This is completely legal. Even though the guy at 7-11 doesn't like you reading the magazines without paying, you don't have to worry about the publisher coming down on you.

I do this quite often. I think it's idiotic to pay 80 dollars for some dense opengl book, when I really only care about the pixel shader listed on page 783. I find in developers reference texts, its particular the case where you have 1 or 2 pages with information, and the rest is filler. Do I need a 2000 page volume on C# 4, just for a two page summary of the new language features?

I'm sure some dickhead accountant or lawyer at O'Reilly publishing would figure I owe them about 50 grand in "stolen intellectual property". I figure they should put more information into their books. If I can take everything of value out over a lunch hour, why wouldn't I put it back on the shelf, and walk out without paying?

Re:So, what... (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38197404)

Your book examples are substantially different from taking an electronic copy of something and you know it. If you went to the library and started to photocopy entire books, the publishers may then have something to say about it.

Re:So, what... (1, Redundant)

eiMichael (1526385) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192374)

You are most certainly infringing their copyrights. To download you request the server make a copy for you that is sent/copied accross routers and filters and proxies. You then make another copy into your ram while downloading and another when saving to your hard drive. Then make another copy back to ram and likely to your video card when you view/play the file.

All of those are infringing copies since you had no copyrights for the first copy. This applies if you are an American or in America. Apologies if you meant in another jurisdiction.

Re:So, what... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193170)

In the US, they don't sue you for downloading, but for distribution. I can download anything I want to off of, say, rapidshare - all day long, right in front of the entire RIAA and MPAA's combined legal squad, and they legally can't do a damned thing about it.

Now if I used a torrent or otherwise provably uploaded copyrighted material that I had no rights to, then they'd be able to sue.

Or, maybe the summary and TFA goofed their terminology.

Actually, this is no longer the case. Back in the 90's, this was the case, but there are a number of laws and court cases on the books in the US that have analyzed "downloading" and found it to be a part of distribution... and therefore copyright infringement for the recipient as well as the distributor. I believe "receiving illegally obtained goods across state lines" has even been used on occasion.

In Canada, it's a mixed bag... in some cases, it's infringement, in other cases it's not. Due to the fact that the music cartels lobbied for a tariff on recordable media and got it back in the 80's/90's, it is completely legal to download music owned by them. Other copyrighted works vary in their legality.

Re:So, what... (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195220)

The same is still true in Australia, downloading is not illegal, it has to be that way since every page on the internet is copyrighted by default. This is a (proposed) private agreement between two industry groups to scare downloaders with idle threats. It has no legal teeth with which it can bite downloaders, it has no provision to cut people off, and has nothing to do with the government.

Or, maybe the summary and TFA goofed their terminology.

No, TFA wasn't an accident, they use that terminology deliberately to give the impression downloading is illegal. I know it's shocking, people lie to journalists who take everything at face value.

Re:So, what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197698)

"it has to be that way since every page on the internet is copyrighted by default."
If a page is designed to be distributed, then they give you rights to view it.

"It has no legal teeth with which it can bite downloaders, it has no provision to cut people off, and has nothing to do with the government."
Except that after *FIVE!* emails over the period of potentially a year telling you that they have detected you downloading their material (4 of which are warnings), then if/when they subpoena your information and decide to sue you, you can't claim you didn't know it was happening.

Re:So, what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38197784)

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/11/the-new-piracy-rules-how-the-five-strikes-work/

I already got a letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189836)

Scared the hell out of me. Ironic thing is that I honestly planned to buy the damn thing when I had the cash. That's the only reason I pirate anyway. Now I'm very, very wary of getting certain things, although, I am just considering a whole bunch of proxies and Tor.

Re:I already got a letter (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189966)

although, I am just considering a whole bunch of proxies and Tor.

...and this is where their master plan breaks down.

If they squeeze too hard the piracy networks will just add another layer of obfuscation. Everybody's bandwidth requirements could double because they're all part of a network of proxies and the ISPs will lose out long term. I wonder if anybody's pointed this out to them yet...?

Re:I already got a letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189984)

Get a VPN from some foreign country, probably not from the US though.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190038)

Maybe the hardcore pirates. That's not what companies care about, they care about the general public. Any obstacle or hardening of piracy is good, as it will make people think about twice of what they're doing ("is piracy bad if I need to use proxies to hide myself?"). This also why DRM doesn't need to provide 100% security - as long as it makes things harder for non-geeks.

Re:I already got a letter (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190628)

I'm sure even the "general public" can follow simple instructions.

This also why DRM doesn't need to provide 100% security - as long as it makes things harder for non-geeks.

Who are we talking about here? People that don't know how to use a computer at all? As far as I've seen, installing cracks is very, very easy. They often provide instructions if you seriously don't know how, even.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190898)

Remember Napster? And what happened after that? Yep, it is called progress, read BitTorrent. I wonder what would be the next protocol...

Re:I already got a letter (1)

Jibekn (1975348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192568)

If you'e trying to imply that BT as a protocol will be banned, you're dead wrong, its already used for many legitimate distributions, and im not just talking about the WoW Patchers.

Even if they somehow succeeded, we can hope the next protocol is created in a tor like manner when you never even get to find out where the data your sending and receiving is coming and going from.

Re:I already got a letter (3, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191784)

Maybe the hardcore pirates. That's not what companies care about, they care about the general public.

Then the general public will just go to the hardcore pirates to get their shit for them, and sneakernet will return as the dominant form of file sharing once again.

Back in the early Napster days, I made a pretty good amount of spending money just downloading music for people and making mix discs for them. When nobody knew how to download music or burn CD's I was able to get $5-10 a piece for them, and with our cable connection (most everyone else was still on dial-up) I was downloading hundreds of songs at a time, they would be finishing faster than I could add new songs to the list. And it wasn't limited to us pesky kids, either; parents and teachers were actually my biggest customers.

It was seriously like the movie Blow [imdb.com] , I was pretty much the go-to guy for anyone that didn't want to spend $20 buying a CD at Tower Records. Until the war on Napster started ramping up and people started having to name songs all sorts of weird shit to get around the filters they put on towards the end due to Metallica's lawsuit, I was cleaning up. Once it started becoming more of a pain in the ass to find the right files without digging (greatly increasing the time it took to assemble a mix disc) I stopped doing it, plus I was getting ready to graduate so I just didn't have time for it anymore.

Still, it was pretty lucrative for a while there, and the harder they make it for laypeople to download, the more lucrative they make it for us again. Hell, I'll make even more money, due to not needing to buy spindles of CD's anymore.

Re:I already got a letter (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192228)

Instead of Sneakernet, I can see the possibility of a more regional darknet based file-sharing items take place, using products like MUTE with private networks. Then people will swap from network on a regional basis, perhaps via an international proxy. Eventually a cell system will evolve, where if someone wants content, they can find a way to get a membership (such as like with Demonoid), and then after a while, be let in. If someone rats any IP they have access to out, only that group of people are affected, nobody else.

Of course, this cat and mouse game will evolve, but one thing I look at is the drug "war". Prohibition never works, so the IP issue needs to be addressed by a different means. (I'm partial to the idea of a clearinghouse paid for with tax money, but there are a lot of things that would need to be hammered out before it can be considered a fair system.)

Re:I already got a letter (1)

The_dev0 (520916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195730)

I think you are dead right - and in preperation for this I (and a few other security-savvy friends) are trying to build a distributed collection of media - one friend is collating and collecting movies, another software, myself music. I'm already up to about 9TB of music alone, all full albums, id3 tagged, named and all above 256 quality - most of it stuff I would never listen to by choice. This way when the ISP's/corps get all trigger happy at least we have a great basis for a useful sneakernet/darknet.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195978)

What would be interesting to see is an distributed rsync utility that uses this type of encrypted P2P architecture. This can be handled in many different ways. From a drive appearing for each public key in the system that is unique, to a decentralized system of permissions combined with deduplication on the backend. This way, if Alice wants to share Bob her PDF collection, it would take a few signed requests to propagate permissions, and then the peers will allow Bob access either by permitting him to access the file, or by sending encrypted data that is decrypted by his key. A well constructed system could have each file encrypted, and permissions handled by the master file key encrypted with each person's personal key, with additional metadata to add group structures, etc. Revoking access would be hard, as to do it right, it would require generation of a new master file key, re-encrypting file or files and destroying/blocking access to the old ones.

Essentially a combination of aspects of PGP's WoT, Hushmail, DC-nets, et. al.

Re:I already got a letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196304)

I used to frequent a small forum for people who enjoy punk rock music. Within this forum there was a thread which I've yet to see duplicated elsewhere. The idea was, someone would make a request for an album, if you had a copy you would upload a zip file of said album to something like rapidshare and then make your own request, and so on and so forth. I'm not an expert in this sort of thing but it seems to me it'd be pretty impossible for the ISP to come to the conclusion that your doing anything illegal using this sort of small scale primitive file sharing. However, it worked amazingly well as everyone browsing the thread could just grab each album as it was uploaded..

Re:I already got a letter (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192286)

You do understand that is selling warez for money, right?

Re:I already got a letter (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192654)

Of course I do, and I haven't done so in over a decade. However, the more the government clamps-down, the more lucrative it becomes. It's hard to justify the risk when there is little reward, but the more they do nonsense like this, the easier it is for people like me to be rewarded for it.

The odds of getting caught are already infinitesimal and that's with all the deep packet inspection bullshit going on. Sneakernet is going to be completely untraceable short of the United States becoming a full on police state, and by the time that day comes to pass people trading HD movies with portable hard drives will be the least of our concerns.

Hell, my circle of friends already limits our exposure through cooperative downloading and sharing. Every time one of us visits another we're bringing our TB hdd's with us and swapping shit back and forth, and we've naturally kinda specialized on our own. I'm the music guy, one friend is the movie guy, another is the game guy, another is the 'expensive' software guy, another is the Mac guy...and we're all trading purely via sneakernet.

It's never going to stop. We're not talking about containers of fake Louis Vuitton handbags, it's a bunch of 1's and 0's on a hard drive. They can either come up with a new business model or expend all of their current profits trying to secure future profits. It really makes no difference to me. People will be creating art and software just the same as they did before, it'll just be far less likely to have a huge WARNER BROTHERS or SONY label on it. It's hard to see how that's necessarily a bad thing...

Re:I already got a letter (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192120)

Right now, VPNs are being used by this purpose, but when more people get disconnected, VPN use will become more common, just because people will actually start caring who is listening in.

I know I do this if I'm using a local wireless network. This way, someone listening in or using a FireSheep type of utility isn't going to be able to get far. Enabling a VPN means that I don't have to worry about a lot of local attacks, be it DNS poisoning, Phorm-like ad intrusions, or other man in the middle stuff. And none of this is for covering illegal/criminal activity -- it is to keep someone from interfering/eavesdropping with my network connectivity.

What is happening is that this is only going to shoot ISPs in their own foot. People move to VPNs, and now instead of being able to catch the serious criminals (the child pornography guys), all lines will go dark. Of course, governments and ISPs can go after VPNs, but that turns the "game" from passively sniffing traffic into an active cat and mouse play in both the legal and technical aspects.

Of course, the next step from VPNs are offshore VPNs, and this will mean that a routine shakedown for IP violations will turn into an international incident, and there are plenty of countries out there who will be more than happy to give the US the middle finger when it comes to hunting someone who pirated the latest Justin Beiber CD.

ISPs need to be smart and just sit back and only go after users who commit the more heinous crimes. If they go after every Joe who copies a MP3 file, then everyone will start using encryption.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

tom229 (1640685) | more than 2 years ago | (#38198984)

This.

I already route 'certain protocols' of traffic over a persistent 10Mbit/sec OpenVPN tunnel to an Anonymous service in sweden. It's not terribly difficult to setup for someone with even an associate level understanding of networking.

The most they can hope for is pushing pirating back to the geek underground.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195734)

If you make it hard for non-geeks they will just wait until its on TV for free.

Media industry still doesnt seem understand the time-value of their product.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195738)

Commercial VPN, port 22 is always open because banks and Gov uses it.

Re:I already got a letter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190660)

Why bother with the slow connection through proxies and Tor, when you say you were going to buy it anyway? Seems like you'd be able to scrounge together $30-50 before you can pipe 4.5GB through Tor. Or are you one of those pirates who only says "I was gonna buy it anyway" only when you're caught?

Re:I already got a letter (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191798)

People want to test drive before they buy. The people that download and don't buy were never going to buy in the first place, there is not a single lost sale there.

Re:I already got a letter (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193748)

People want to test drive before they buy. The people that download and don't buy were never going to buy in the first place, there is not a single lost sale there.

And on top of that, going this route could save a lot of other people a lot of cash, when you can intelligently inform them that the product is crap and not worth considering for purchase.

Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (4, Interesting)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189838)

http://pirateparty.org.au/give-no-quarter [pirateparty.org.au] : They recognise it is impractical, won't adequately protect privacy or due process and is just the ISPs trying to avoid regulation. That's my interpretation of their release, anyway.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

Commontwist (2452418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189964)

Somehow, I doubt they will be avoiding efforts to regulate. Just look at how copyright has slowly but surely increased over the years. Music and movie cartels will always keep pushing and pushing to get more and more. I'm hoping that government will wake up, realize that this will eventually stagnate their population's creative juices, and slap them down hard but I'm realistic enough to realize that won't happen until enough people are screaming in hordes at their doors.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190112)

You mean the same government that is paid for by the music and movie cartel lobbies? The same government that continues to hire former music and movie execs (as well as oil and auto and wall street ones).

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38192536)

You are correct in assuming that "the government" doesn't give a rat's arse or else they would have done something a long time ago, as part of the switch to and the emergence of wide-scale, broadband Internet access in their citizens' homes which changed the playing field considerably. As a separate trend, the wealth of functions offered by creative tools have been exploding. It's quite easy now to make a remix of an existing song using Digital Audio Workstation software and VST plugins (software synthesizers, etc). But instead of allowing citizens to do more with content, they are allowed to do less.

If you are an Aussie, I believe you can join their Pirate Party for free. The main thing though is make a habit out of discussing these things: "how's the weather? Anything new? Actually... do you know what the Public Domain is?"

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190032)

I propose building a network of proxies which transmit encrypted data 24/7. If nobody's downloading then they transmit random data so the ISPs are unable to tell if you're actually downloading anything or not.

The ISPs could collapse, but that's the price they pay for their cooperation.

Sounds mean? It's the logical result of actions like this. The only certainty of the piracy vs. copyright war is that that the piracy won't stop. Ever.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (2)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190186)

Since Australia has transfer limits on internet connections, that would either mean that you have to pay a lot more per month, or your internet connection will get seriously rate limited. All just for transferring other peoples data or worse yet, useless data.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193644)

One of the ISPs can grab all the other four ISP's customers overnight? I wonder if they'll sleep at night thinking about that.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191370)

I propose building a network of proxies which transmit encrypted data 24/7. If nobody's downloading then they transmit random data so the ISPs are unable to tell if you're actually downloading anything or not.

Hello, Freenet.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193490)

Devil's advocate:

The ISPs can just refuse to let users communicate to the proxies. If someone sues the ISP, the ISP can always state that they are blocking potentially criminal content, which is good enough for a judge or jury.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193616)

Note that the summary says "Australia's five major ISPs" - the only way they can do this is by sticking together.

If just one ISP doesn't do this then they'll have all the other ISPs customers in a couple of months. If the major ISPs do manage to stick together then they open the door for a small ISP to become a big ISP.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193878)

I'm not sure if Australia is like the US in this regard, but here, each ISP has exclusive access to their cable/DSL networks. If the local DSL ISP boots a subscriber, there are no other DSL providers to go to. So, if a cable-based ISP and a DSL based ISP decide to block a range of sites, unless someone gets an upstream connection from somewhere else, those sites will stay blocked.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194720)

Here the vast majority of residential, high speed Internet access is delivered by ADSL/ADSL2. This uses a copper local loop that is owned by Telstra (former govt. monopoly telco and owner of one of the five ISPs) but access must be leased to other parties at regulated rates. Once the DSL service reaches the local telephone exchange other ISPs can opt to install their own DSLAM hardware and backhaul, or lease the same from Telstra. Essentially it works out that there's Telstra Bigpond having its back preferentially scratched by Telstra, and the remainder working together to some degree. I can effectively get ADSL service from any ISP in the country anywhere suitable DSL infrastructure exists. There's no monopoly service in that sense.

We are in the process of removing monopoly ownership of the nationwide wholesale voice/data infrastructure, making all parties equal when it comes to offering retail services on top of the backbone.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (2)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194894)

The US model defeats the whole purpose of privatising the telecoms system. What's the point of setting up little mini monopolies that can just as effectively abuse their client base as could a single larger one?

In Australia, there are at least three (Optus/Telstra/AGC and maybe more?) wholesale backbone providers that are required to allow all ISPs to lease copper line bandwidth/services/endpoints/etc. Those ISPs then retail their services and DSL connectivity to individual customers. There are also a couple of cable TV / internet services from Optus and Telstra, but they are not mutually exclusive with DSL accessibility.

Re:Pirate Party Australia not Impressed (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196374)

Australians can currently join the Pirate Party of Australia for free. [pirateparty.org.au]

We currently see a massive offensive aimed at the US's strongest allies: the UK, Canada and Australia. Once Big Content gets their agenda settled overseas, they will then try to implement the same thing domestically, pointing at these same allies and then saying US legislation should be brought in line with their allies' legislation.

Australia is a place? (1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189842)

No it is not! I think we need less news about imaginary places like Australia and Middle Earth and more news about America, America's planet, and America's internet. Not Mexico, either, they are just deviant Italians there. I found a fish in your shoe,,,,,, is!

Re:Australia is a place? (0)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190058)

Yes it is! Look on the map, it's just to the right of Germany...

Re:Australia is a place? (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190392)

Yes it is! Look on the map, it's just to the right of Germany...

That's Australia! People always get those two countries confused.

What Evidence (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189848)

The real issue is what evidence will be deemed acceptable, what proof will be required of uploading content. Nothing automated, who monitored it, what content was uploaded content was downloaded (file names not good enough as no one has copyright on file names). The period over which that IP address was monitored with at least one independent witness (can't have for profit people who get paid per copyright infringement notification).

Problem is this 'creative industry' has a history of being creative with lies, as such any accusation should be corroborated by independent people to ensure validity.

Regardless of the lies and bullshit, the whole industry is still parasitic by nature, it neither feed, clothes, houses or heals. It is a luxury and it's impact upon the necessities of life always needs to be limited.

Re:What Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189942)

"The real issue is what evidence will be deemed acceptable, what proof will be required of uploading content."

Exactly!
I play their 'region' game too.
I block _all_ the IP addresses of my whole country and only share with people from the other 194 ones. So they can't have any proof obtained locally and I doubt foreign ones will be accepted.

Re:What Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190472)

I can't wait that some geek create a virus that make the host download popular illegal file on the net, then infect some influential people so the whole thing will fall apart. Those people need to learn that IP and MAC address alone ain't sufficient to charge someone.

Judge : "Do you have something to say for your defense son?"
Pirate : "A virus did it! Here's the *cough* forget *cough* digital proof that the virus was on my computer. Now prove I'm lying gramp!"

Re:What Evidence (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192546)

In a civil suit, you don't have to prove anything, your argument just has to be more compelling than your opponent's (I believe the term is "plurality of evidence"). MAFIAA's contractors can make some very nice-looking court presentations.

Re:What Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190706)

Problem is this 'creative industry' has a history of being creative with lies, as such any accusation should be corroborated by independent people to ensure validity.

Regardless of the lies and bullshit, the whole industry is still parasitic by nature, it neither feed, clothes, houses or heals. It is a luxury and it's impact upon the necessities of life always needs to be limited.

Amen to that! "Intellectual Property" craze is just about reinventing aristocracy as a form of government - it became obvious as soon as copyright protection started being concerned with authors' offspring, pushing for perpetuation of copyright. IP is latest sanctuary for elite classes against ongoing slow democratization of the world, a floating device to keep minority of controllers above masses. Our duty as free human beings is to resist, and if that fails and we fall into slavery, to rebel. We have to substitute their poisonous gifts (well ... not gifts, not even merchandise, we have to pay just to be allowed limited access and usage to their ... stuff) with truly free culture, and leave the chains they forged for us in the darkness of damnatio memoriae, unwanted and unnoticed, thrown roadside, until the evil spell upon them wears out.

Re:What Evidence (2)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193924)

Amen to that! "Intellectual Property" craze is just about reinventing aristocracy as a form of government - it became obvious as soon as copyright protection started being concerned with authors' offspring, pushing for perpetuation of copyright. IP is latest sanctuary for elite classes against ongoing slow democratization of the world, a floating device to keep minority of controllers above masses. Our duty as free human beings is to resist, and if that fails and we fall into slavery, to rebel. We have to substitute their poisonous gifts (well ... not gifts, not even merchandise, we have to pay just to be allowed limited access and usage to their ... stuff) with truly free culture, and leave the chains they forged for us in the darkness of damnatio memoriae, unwanted and unnoticed, thrown roadside, until the evil spell upon them wears out.

Translated (preachy melodrama stripped out, in other words)

Give the independently produced content (using creative commons, public domain, open source, etc terms) a fair shake. In time, enough alternative content will be discovered of sufficient quality that the more traditional content, encumbered by more and more draconian imaginary property laws, will simply become irrelevant, or at least greatly diminished in relevance.

We have the tools for production, distribution, and easy access available to us now. Use them.

And that said, the above post by me (can't speak for the AC quoted) is hereby presented CC: BY/SA.

Re:What Evidence (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195574)

Apparently you're confusing freedom with free entertainment. Happens a lot in the piracy community.

this is not reasonable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189890)

Please not that this may sound reasonable but it is not. In the end it just comes down to the ISP giving information on its customers to third parties without a court order.

Re:this is not reasonable (3, Informative)

Spikeles (972972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195770)

Wrong. Please read full proposal. [commsalliance.com.au] Note specifically this section:

3.6 Discovery Notice from ISP to Account Holder

In the event that an Account Holder is sent one Education Notice and [three] Warning Notices, the ISP will match the IP address from its scheme database and then send a Discovery Notice to the Account Holder.

The Discovery Notice will inform the Account Holder that:

  • the Rights Holder may then seek to apply for access to the Account Holders details by way of a preliminary discovery or subpoena application, for the sole purpose of the Rights Holder taking direct copyright infringement action against the Account Holder
  • the ISP will notify the Rights Holder that the Account Holder has apparently failed to address the matters set out in the Notices
  • should the ISP be served with a valid preliminary discovery order (or subpoena) the ISP will be required to comply with the order, which may require the ISP to disclose the Account Holders details to the Rights Holder.

So, in effect, the customer will get 4 warnings, then the ISP will respond to the rights holder, saying this ID number accessed files 4 times. Only then, may the rights holder start a court process to get the name and details of the account holder. Until the time that the court says so, the ISP will not divulge any of their customer details.

Guilty, until proven innocent??? (3, Interesting)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189956)

Tell me if i am wrong, but ain't whole these warning letters ILLEGAL? If i am the one receiving them for example, and these letters says that i am guilty without prosecution, then why the heck we need judges and courts at all? Ok, ok, i am just trying to be ironic, but for me this is simply illegal, if not criminal attempt to scare me, which could cause me a lot of nightmares, and many other emotional discomforts.....if you still follow me, i would go in court, and sue them, for 1 million dollars. And if i lost work, or i don't have work, also would sue them for lost opportunities (here it is good idea to go to your lawyer and discuss all the little details).

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190062)

I'm guessing it's legal.
Just like it'd be perfectly legal for me to send you a letter accusing you of something.
At that point it'd be just as legal for you to sue me for fraud or extortion if the accusations are untrue (ofcourse if they are true, you might want to avoid that).
If you're ever wondering whether something is legal, think "how would lawyers earn most money?".

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190396)

Exactly, but based on one IP address, and some funny log extract, or whatever else they have, which is apparently not enough for court case, how are they going to prove that they are right and i am wrong??? Keep in mind that you are the one that is supposed to prove my bad deeds, not the other way out. And imagine 10-20000 "pirates" going in court, and suing them...Just imagine....

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190830)

The whole idea relies on the fact that this just doesn't happen often enough (most people just pay up and no challenge - hell, I know someone who paid ACS:Law for a similar accusation that they *swear* they didn't do).

The payoff on such things relies on the fact that it's free to make an accusation but extremely expensive to prove it or disprove it - and even if you can guarantee you're innocent ("The internet hasn't worked for 6 months here because the telecoms cable cut off all the island's Internet"), it's still time, money and hassle to take it through the courts and end up with a lousy apology and/or token pay-off.

But most people either a) know they did it or b) know they didn't do but can't be bothered to fight, which makes it profitable.

For sure, if I got one I'd be challenging it - especially now that the EU has said it's illegal to monitor my Internet connection for such activity, etc. (though, obviously, you could still be "caught" if their analysis of a remote system saw you doing whatever you weren't supposed to be doing, e.g. they subpoena a torrent host, etc.). I'd be very interested in where they got their information and although I probably wouldn't have the funds to drag them through the courts properly, I'd sure as hell fight and win if I was innocent.

It's people who don't understand the law, and don't want the hassle, or people that *know* what they did was illegal (does anyone really contest that the thing they're accused of is actually illegal? I bet not, it's just the nitty-gritty of how the companies prove that it was them rather the someone else that causes the problems).

If you didn't do it, reply with a standard letter (NOT any form they've sent you with options) and never deviate from your established line ("I didn't do it") until they either give up or take you to court properly. If they take you to court, turn up. That's about all you'd need if you genuinely didn't do it. If they don't take you to court, you've won by default. Chances are they wouldn't bother - the only cases I know of in the UK where it went to court were where people admitted they'd done it.

And if you did it? DON'T say you didn't. Pay up, negotiate, or find yourself a technically if you really must. Most people fall into the first category upon receiving such a letter, I imagine.

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191244)

In my country, Canada, and it is the same for USA, and i suppose it should be the same for Australia and England, we have the very convenient thing called "small claims court", in which you don't need lawyer, you could defend yourself, the process is mostly informal, and the maximum reward is only 25 000 CAD (in Canada). The good thing is that you don't need lawyer, and they don't need lawyer too, translated, they are loosing their best weapon, a good and well paid lawyer. And you could question them directly, under oath, which means that in most cases all you will hear will be: I DON'T KNOW, I AM NOT SURE, I DON'T REMEMBER. And just to finish, no, it is not about 100-200 CAD, it is about 25 000 CAD for all the reasons that i already mentioned before. In the best case scenario (they don't appear because of too many people suing them) i would be granted 25 000 CAD.

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (2)

theCoder (23772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192306)

Actually, the letters could be extortion even if they are true. For example, if I see someone rob a bank, and I send them a letter demanding money or I'll turn them in, that's extortion and I can be criminally prosecuted. But you're right that the guilty probably wouldn't call the police to report the extortion.

Assuming that Australian laws are similar to my admittedly non-lawyerly knowledge of US law, the letters might be construed as extortion. It probably depends a lot on what they say. If they are "don't do this again, or we'll report you", it might be hard to justify that as extortion, since they aren't asking for any money. But if they say something like "we've deactivated your account and you have to pay $100 to reactivate it", that could be extortion, even if the underlying reason is true.

Not that any ISP will be prosecuted for their letters, unless they make a mistake and hit innocent people. And even then, I doubt there will be anyone sent to jail.

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193992)

Actually, the letters could be extortion even if they are true. For example, if I see someone rob a bank, and I send them a letter demanding money or I'll turn them in, that's extortion and I can be criminally prosecuted. But you're right that the guilty probably wouldn't call the police to report the extortion.

In that case, instead of the police, they may very likely go to another agency to deal with you. After all, it is often much less expensive to dispose of a body than it is to fight a big court case.

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190694)

Err, Comcast does this now here in the US. They erroneously sent me one a few years ago, at which point I called them up and demanded that they either prove it or issue an apology. I received neither, interestingly enough...

Re:Guilty, until proven innocent??? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190852)

Bad move from your side. You should have document it, and sorry, but no phone calls. Always use mail, registered. And then when you got no answer from them, just go to small claims court, and if they don't appear or try to defend themselves, then only based on the given documents (accusations, mails, etc), you will receive some nice compensation.

ISP's (1)

gumpish (682245) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190122)

Unfortunately these ISP's will almost certainly be interfering with the sharing of file's which have free license's (e.g. Creative Common's).

When will government's stop serving the interest's of corporation's and start serving the interest's of their citizen's?

Re:ISP's (2)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190632)

Unfortunately these ISP's will almost certainly be interfering with the sharing of file's which have free license's (e.g. Creative Common's).

Unfortunately these ISP's will almost certainly be interfering with the sharing of file's which have free license's (e.g. Creative Common's).

Exactly. There is such a thing as legal file sharing, and artists just starting out and trying to get their work in front of people, or those less interested in profit (and there are such artists), can and often do use P2P to get exposure and build an audience. Which the major labels don't like, because they used to be the only game in town .. they've been making money off of past generations of new talent and they're not happy at all with the idea of this generation and future ones bypassing their contract racket .. so of course they lump it all in with "piracy", and legal sharing of CC and public-domain work is "piracy" only in the sense that they didn't get their cut for "producing" it themselves.

When will government's stop serving the interest's of corporation's and start serving the interest's of their citizen's?

As soon as their citizen's ( :p ) wake up and start following up on how well they're doing their job ..

The legal way is the right way (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190180)

pursue serial offenders through the courts.

If only other countries worried about copyright infringement would adopt this novel concept...

Best way to circumvent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190208)

Any idea whats the best way to circumvent this? Free proxies and vpn's tend to lack bandwidth for torrenting, would a paid one be good for this? Any recommendations which one to use?

Re:Best way to circumvent (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192212)

I recommend a offshore seedbox. Download your files to your seedbox and then obtain them from the box via a secure connection.

Sounds like a good approach - for the file sharer. (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190212)

This approach means that if I read it correctly the file sharer gets four warnings (one "educational letter" and three formal warnings) before anything happens.

That means that smart file sharers will take action after the first letter, to cover their tracks. E.g. starting to use encryption, or other methods that hide to the ISP what you're up to. And after that there are three warning letters that allow fine tuning of their methods. Receiving such a letter basically means "you're doing something wrong, we can still see what you're doing!".

And the end result: the ISP happy as there is not much for them to do; the recording industry happy because they don't see any file sharing taking place any more; and the user happy because they can continue what they've been doing over the last decade but now they're safe.

Re:Sounds like a good approach - for the file shar (1)

trancemission (823050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191732)

Yes that is pretty much spot on. A few years back this happened in the UK, but I am struggling to find a successful prosecution.

I received a 'warning' email, it simply showed my IP address and the name of a torrent file.

Good luck in our courts with that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/feb/08/filesharing-prosecutions-digital-economy [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Sounds like a good approach - for the file shar (1)

dudeman500 (1535479) | more than 2 years ago | (#38198962)

The recording industry will never be happy. They'll see stuff being downloaded but won't be able to identify who.

Re:Sounds like a good approach - for the file shar (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38199346)

The idea of hiding is that the downloads are hidden. So the recording industry can't see it either. Just the ISP sees a lot of traffic coming through.

Bob the angry flower (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190252)

Bob the angry flower to crack down on ignorant use of apostophes

Hah. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190474)

No means to counter 'piracy' will avail. Today's piracy is no different from spanish colonies smuggling despite iron hand of spanish monarchy - if you force your prices, people will smuggle/pirate at the cost of their lives.

if you totally prevent online piracy, people will copy cds/dvds in between each other and still pirate.

the only solution to piracy/smuggling is how it was ended back in early 18th century - abolition of monopolies and oligopolies, in whatever form they may be - and no, 4 major companies 'seeming' not to be monopoly/oligopoly doesnt remove the existence of that monopoly.

Re:Hah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190738)

Smuggling and piracy are entirely different concepts. I hope no one is stupid enough to mod you up.

Re:Hah. (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38191536)

if you totally prevent online piracy, people will copy cds/dvds in between each other and still pirate.

Maybe 5 years ago they would use cd and dvd discs. My current PC doesn't even have an optical drive, and I have not missed it much. These days USB solid state and external hard drives are more likely, or carrying a laptop over to their house. Sneakernet is very hard to stop.

Meanwhile, online file transfer will simply go full encryption if they try to squeeze too hard, and move the title and decryption keys off somewhere else than the file itself (a private distribution channel).

Re:Hah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38191812)

Tahoe-LAFS is ready.

icon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190588)

Via the wikileaks cables, should this be flagged under imperialism?

How's that new US standing army working out, Australia?

On 3 1, 2, 3, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38191034)

Everybody VPN.

Sounds like a good reason to switch providers... (1)

REALMAN (218538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38192410)

If it were me I would drop any provider participating in this scheme.

MITM successful over HDMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194380)

From http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-11/rb-c112411.php
"Checkmate! RUB researchers outsmart Intel copy protection HDCP

For over a decade, Intel's widely used copy protection HDCP has been trusted by the media industry, which carries out business in high-resolution digital video and audio content worth thousands of millions. Researchers from the working group on secure hardware led by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Tim Güneysu of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum were able to checkmate the protection system of an entire industry with relatively little effort using a so-called "man-in-the-middle" attack. They will be presenting their results next week at the international security conference ReConFig 2011 in Cancun, Mexico.

Protection for digital entertainment

HDCP is now found in almost every HDMI or DVI-compliant TV or computer flat screen. It serves to pass digital content from a protected source media, such as a Blu-ray, to the screen via a fully encrypted channel. There have been concerns about the security of the HDCP system for some time. In 2010, an HDCP master key, which is intended to form the secret core element of the encryption system, appeared briefly on a website. In response, the manufacturer Intel announced that HDCP still represented an effective protection component for digital entertainment, as the production of an HDCP-compatible chip using this master key would be highly complex and expensive.

Attack on field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA)

That caught the attention of Bochum's researchers. "We developed an independent hardware solution instead, based on a cheap FPGA board" explained Prof. Dr.-Ing. Tim Güneysu, who set to work with the final year student Benno Lomb. "We were able to tap the HDCP encrypted data streams, decipher them and send the digital content to an unprotected screen via a corresponding HDMI 1.3-compatible receiver." We used the commercial ATLYS board from the company Digilent with a Xilinx Spartan-6 FPGA, which has the necessary HDMI interfaces and a serial RS232 port for communication.

Material costs of approximately 200 Euros

In their studies, the aim was never to find a way of making illegal copies. "Rather, our intention was to fundamentally investigate the safety of the HDCP system and to financially assess the actual cost for the complete knockout" reported Prof. Güneysu. "The fact that we have achieved our goal in a degree thesis and with material costs of approximately 200 Euro definitely does not speak for the safety of the current HDCP system."

Manipulation via the middleman

This "man-in-the-middle" attack in which a middleman (the ATLYS FPGA board) manipulates the entire communication between the Blu-ray player and the flat screen TV without being detected is of little interest for pirates in practice due to the availability of simpler alternatives. The scientists do, however, envisage a real threat to security-critical systems, for example at authorities or in the military. Although Intel is already offering a new security system, HDCP 2.0, due to the backward compatibility, the weak point will also remain a problem in coming years, concluded Prof. Güneysu."

Been there, done that, got the legislation (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194950)

Interestingly, this sort of thing was trialled in the UK by the BPI back in 2008 [paidcontent.co.uk] and it was abandoned quickly. It was completely ineffective, very expensive, and resulting in some bad press due to lots of false accusations. It did lead to some very profitable (at least in t A couple of years later they had it put into law [legislation.gov.uk] , making it much easier and cheaper for them (ISPs didn't want to pay) but a couple of years on from that and implementing it is still some way away.

All this sort of scheme does is make money for lobbyists, monitoring companies and lawyers, at the expense of actual creators, ISPs and the general public.

Slashdot Editor's To Crack Down On Bad Punctuation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38195112)

That is all. Thank you very much.

Article is Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38196396)

This got sat on, its not going ahead. As you were, all.

Update: Rejected (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38199328)

The plan has been rejected by all the major Australian content organizations. They're still waiting for the iiNet v AFACT High Court judgment, since it will have a significant impact on the playing field.

http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/29/bugger-off-content-industry-tells-isps-on-piracy/ [delimiter.com.au] (There are some more related articles on the site)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?