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 ISPs Reject Calls To Police Their Users

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the they-like-money-i-bet dept.

Privacy 86

jon_cooper writes "After recent setbacks in the RIAA's lawsuits, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has decided to try a different approach in Australia - they want ISPs to do their dirty work for them. Australian ISPs, though, have soundly rejected calls from AFACT to slow down or terminate user accounts that AFACT has determined are being used to distribute copyrighted works. Telstra (one of the larger ISPs in question) had this to say: 'We do not believe it is up to the ISPs to be judge, jury and executioner in relation to the issue when the content owners have any number of legal avenues to pursue infringements.'"

cancel ×

86 comments

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

Huzzah! (0, Troll)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423581)

'Course, it is former penal colony...

Re:Huzzah! (3, Funny)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429829)

Yes and we are all a bunch of dirty thieves!
While your typed that I stole your wallet.
Now watch as i escape on my kangaroo!

</sarcasm>

Re:Huzzah! (1)

sheriff_cahill (996608) | more than 6 years ago | (#20431293)

Now watch as i escape on my kangaroo!

A real Australian would escape on someone else's kangaroo...

Give it 1 year. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20423589)

This will turn around 180' once money comes into the play. You hear that RIAA bring in the millions and we'll do your dirty work for you.

In this world everyone will do it for the money.

Re:Give it 1 year. (4, Informative)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423623)

There isn't any RIAA in Australia. It's ARIA.

Re:Give it 1 year. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423727)

A rose by another name... care to tell me the big differences?

Re:Give it 1 year. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20425063)

They took the A that would normally stand for America and put it at the front, and made it stand for Austral... oh... I see what you did there.

Re:Give it 1 year. (2, Insightful)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425247)

There's a big difference. the RIAA is payed up with the right people in America. Apparently the ARIA isn't payed up with the right people in Australia.

Re:Give it 1 year. (1)

l0cust (992700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20432633)

Aria shacho?! Just wait till one of the BigBadGuys dons a cute outfit, places it in an oversized tumbler and takes it on a Gondola ride. It will reverse the policy within seconds.

(A cookie for the reference finder)

THE REAL QUESTION IS.... (1)

BillGod (639198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426377)

Would they get sued for copywrite infringement if they used a duck as a mascot? AFACT AFACT

Re:THE REAL QUESTION IS.... (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429607)

Actually that would be trademark infringement. Although, that would mean AFACT would still have to have egregiously similar ads, which is unlikely. (Ever see commercials for the MPAA? Me neither.)

Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0, Redundant)

justanyone (308934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423627)

I haven't ever been "down under", and am wondering if the companies that serve as ISPs there are multinational corporations? That is, do they service just the Australian mainland?

Of course, New Zealand is rightfully sovereign, but I'm not sure that calling an ISP that services both Australia and New Zealand a "multinational". Really, I'm speaking of any ISP that has customers in Australia, the U.S., Europe, etc. I would even accept Indonesia since they're so big population-wise and geographically...

Is there an Australia On Line (AOL)? Is Time-Warner in the business of content delivery there? Are the phone companies the same? How integrated are U.S. firms with the world telecom market?

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20423883)

Of course, New Zealand is rightfully sovereign, but I'm not sure that calling an ISP that services both Australia and New Zealand a "multinational".

Do you realise that this kind of attitude is why Americans are stereotyped as being totally ignorant and ego-centric? Just because a company doesn't cater to your precious US of A, it doesn't mean it isn't multinational. Multi. National. It means that it operates in multiple nations. Such as Australia and New Zealand.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20424511)

That's bollocks, the guy just didn't know what multi-national meant and is confusing it with intercontinental. From the sound of it he wouldn't consider a company operating in the USA and Canada multi-national.

Do you realise that this kind of attitude makes non-Americans appear to be overly eager to find ego-centric tendencies in Americans?

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (-1, Flamebait)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424881)

Of course, New Zealand is rightfully sovereign, but I'm not sure that calling an ISP that services both Australia and New Zealand a "multinational".

Do you realise that this kind of attitude is why Americans are stereotyped as being totally ignorant and ego-centric? Just because a company doesn't cater to your precious US of A, it doesn't mean it isn't multinational. Multi. National. It means that it operates in multiple nations. Such as Australia and New Zealand.

Multi=many, so a company that does business in only Australia and New Zealand is not a multinational company, it is a bi national company just as a company that does business in only the US and Canada (or Mexico, or any other single nation) is not a multinational company. THe companies not being multinational is not because they don't do business in the US, there are numerous multinationals that do not do business in the US. Two countries are not enough to make a company a multinational in my view.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425093)

How many is many? Is it more than one? I've never heard anyone say that a company is bi. There's a thought for the day.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0, Flamebait)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430041)

I've never heard anyone say that a company is bi.
Is a homo-national company going to hell? Also, if two homo-national companies partnered, would that relationship be valid in the USA?

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0, Offtopic)

Narcissus (310552) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425161)

And here I was thinking that 'multi' (ie. 'multiple') just meant "more than one" ( eg. http://www.answers.com/multiple&r=67 [answers.com] ). Just because 'bi' means "two" doesn't mean that 'multi' can't be two as well.

Otherwise where do you stop? I don't know for sure, but I would guess that technically there is a way to refer to any number in that way ("bi", "tri", "quad"...) so if you can't use 'multi' when you can also use 'bi' then when can you use it, exactly?

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425551)

I look at it this way, in the US, if a company operates in two neighboring states it is not a multi state company. The same for companies operating in multiple countries, if a company operates in the US and Canada (or Australia and New Zealand), it is not multinational. There is nothing in its current operations that makes it significantly easier to operate worldwide than for a company that operates in just one of those countries. Now if on the other hand, it operates in say the US and France (or Australia and Japan), it is already operating over a greater distance and in significantly different business cultures, so most of the systems necessary to expand into a company operating worldwide are already in place. That being said a company operating in New Zealand and Australia is, generally speaking, closer to being ready to make the jump to multinational than one operating in the US and Canada (having to deal with offices where ground transport cannot be used to get from one to the other introduces some significant logistical hurdles).

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20426231)

I look at it this way

It's not a matter of opinion. Your own private definition of "multinational" could be "has a name that rhymes with "banana" for all the relevance it has. When you communicate with other human beings, you operate with the definitions the rest of the people using your language use. If you disagree, then I should inform you that my private definition for "I look at it this way" is "I, Attila Dimedica, am a fool and acknowledge that I am totally wrong".

Quite frankly, your argument is just an asinine exercise in word games to try to placate the embarrassment you feel at having such an awful international reputation as egocentric idiots. Multinational means "pertinent to multiple nations" to the entire rest of the world and anybody with multiple brain cells. You don't really believe that it means anything else, you just want an explanation for the disagreement that doesn't involve Americans looking egocentric. Face facts: the OP was a typically self-centred Yank and you are his apologist because you don't want it to be true.

The same for companies operating in multiple countries, if a company operates in the US and Canada (or Australia and New Zealand), it is not multinational. There is nothing in its current operations that makes it significantly easier to operate worldwide than for a company that operates in just one of those countries.

Of course there is. Operating world-wide involves dealing with multiple legal systems, multiple cultures, multiple languages, multiple tax codes, etc. If a company operates in multiple nations, then it's vastly more likely that they already have experience dealing with these issues.

Now if on the other hand, it operates in say the US and France (or Australia and Japan), it is already operating over a greater distance and in significantly different business cultures

Spoken like somebody entirely culturally ignorant of the rest of the world. Yet more reinforcement of the USA stereotype. Just because North America is incredibly homogeneous, it doesn't mean that physical proximity means similar business cultures. For instance, Western European business cultures are often more similar to American business culture in many ways than Eastern European business cultures.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426419)

And you are just the ignorant other side of the coin. It really feels good to tout out the stereotype of how Americans are so stereotypical of other countries, doesn't it?? But don't listen to me, you said it best yourself -
Spoken like somebody entirely culturally ignorant of the rest of the world. Yet more reinforcement of the anti-USA stereotype. You don't really believe that it means anything else, you just want an explanation for the disagreement that involves Americans looking egocentric. Face facts: you are a typically self-centred(sic) Yank hater.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20427829)

Spoken like somebody entirely culturally ignorant of the rest of the world.

That doesn't resemble me in the slightest though. What can you point to in what I am saying that suggests otherwise? I pointed out exactly what I think is culturally ignorant. Repeating my words back to me doesn't work unless I'm being culturally ignorant too.

It really feels good to tout out the stereotype of how Americans are so stereotypical of other countries, doesn't it??>

It's the exact opposite. There are some American family members of mine that are very dear to me. That's why people like you feeding the stereotype piss me off; my family members unfairly get lumped in with fuckwits like you who are ruining the USA's reputation.

You don't really believe that it means anything else

It's ludicrous to try to throw that back in my face, because I'm not the one trying to redefine "multinational" to mean something other than multiple + nation. This isn't a playground. "That's what you are, but what am I?" isn't an argument.

you are a typically self-centred(sic) Yank hater.

Guess what else is part of the Yank stereotype? A persecution complex. You act like a twat, then blame it on me hating Yanks when I actually hate twats like you who are giving Yanks a bad name. Oh, and more of that stereotype? Arrogance. You know perfectly well self-centred is spelt correctly. It's like you are intentionally propagating your stereotype.

I think it's quite sad that reasonable Americans have a bad reputation because loud-mouthed idiots like you feed this stereotype. Stop it, for the sake of all the reasonable Americans. You are an embarrassment to your country.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20427941)

You don't know me, and don't even know my nationality, yet you group me into a class and assume things about me. Who is the arrogant ignorant one really?? For the record, I hate ALL "loud mouthed twats" regardless of where they live.
I would slap you, but it isn't even worth the sting on my fingertips.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20429399)

You're just an envious ass because Telstra is the only choice you've got (if you are indeed an Aussie). And your bandwidth is capped. I'm not saying America is better, by all means; Robert Cringly pointed out how poor American Internet service is (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20 070810_002683.html), trialing some third world countries. But its attitudes like this that make Austrailia's technology appear worse then third world. Aussies are better known for sports anyways... not technology. Perhaps they'll wise up.

"I would slap you, but it isn't even worth the sting on my fingertips", If you're not an Aussie, then you just sound like a bitter Queen...(and yes, it takes one to know one!).

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430371)

....Your own private definition of "multinational" ....

Goodness, have none of you ever hear of a dictionary to look up the meaning of words??

Merriam-Webster:
2 a : of, relating to, or involving more than two nations *a multinational alliance* b : having divisions in more than two countries *a multinational corporation*
    ñmultinational noun

There now go and argue some more! :)

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (3, Funny)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429293)

Thats OK. They operate in Australia, New Zealand AND Tasmania.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429401)

Thats OK. They operate in Australia, New Zealand AND Tasmania.
Well, they would be multinationals then.:-)

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20438081)

Whoosh!

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20426159)

Of course, pardon my intrusion,

but I'd have to say your mom is very multi-national. She's practically an institution.

I butt-fucked that bitch in Oz then Kiwi-land. She sucked my cock in the Faulklands,

it was awesome.

I've never seen a mouth stretch that wide.

It was a wild ride.

But, she was good. A dem fine gell.

Not ego-centric... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20426299)

Do you realise that this kind of attitude is why Americans are stereotyped as being totally ignorant and geo-centric?

There fixed that for you... (with a wink and a nod)

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20427003)

Well said.

To anyone from outside of the U.S. reading this thread, please do not judge all Americans by the loud-mouths among us. Many of us cringe too when we hear/read comments like the above.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

typidemon (729497) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430517)

But there are so many of them ...

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20431873)

I know... :cries:

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20431007)

It's all well and good that you cringe, but could you stop voting for them as well?

Sincerely, the rest of the world.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20428163)

Ok I get it, thats like if a company operated in Arizona and New Mexico, it would be multi-national.. Thanks!

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#20431019)

So which of those two has seceded from the Union? BTW you need to update your flag, it's still got 50 stars.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20429141)

Of course, New Zealand is rightfully sovereign, but I'm not sure that calling an ISP that services both Australia and New Zealand a "multinational".

Do you realise that this kind of attitude is why Americans are stereotyped as being totally ignorant and ego-centric? Just because a company doesn't cater to your precious US of A, it doesn't mean it isn't multinational. Multi. National. It means that it operates in multiple nations. Such as Australia and New Zealand.


Wow, someone was overzealous to be a dick. The guy was implying that he didn't consider a company servicing only two closely related (even if only geographically or otherwise) countries as multinational. Get off your high horse and get a clue, buddy.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

blackdropbear (554444) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429733)

Considering New Zealand is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as a Colony which allows us to point out the the South Africans and English that Australia and it's colonies has 3 World Cups to their one each means that New Zealand cannot be considered a seprate country to Australia. We just like to pretend it is to save us from embarresment about their Welsh and Scottish inherited sheep shagging tendencies.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (1)

bsdewhurst (986863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430043)

To be fair all of the Australian states are called colonies in the constitution because that is what they were at the time. Section six of the preamble covers this.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".
So yes according to the constitution of Australia, New Zealand is a state of Australia. For those who don't know the history New Zealand helped write the constitution because at the time it was considering being a member of the Commonwealth. That said sporting wise NZ basically is a state I can count three Australian national competitions where New Zealand teams compete, plus the Super 14 and the new joint netball league starting next year, Cricket is about the only holdout.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (4, Informative)

microbrewer (774971) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423939)

Australia has Telstra the former national government owned incumbent telephone monopoly that still thinks its part of the government .

Because it was the national incumbent Testra still own most of the infrastructure and has control over the Australian backbone that is leases to ISPs at exorbitant rates ,

Most Australian broadband plans are either metered or capped .

Mark Pesce an American that Lives in Australia (although we call him an Aussie now since hes applied for Citizenship ) who was also one of the creators of VRML did a great piece in the Meblorne Age why Aussies hate Telstra

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/why-we-all- hate-telstra/2007/05/19/1179497337693.html?page=fu llpage [theage.com.au]

It's amazing! (2, Interesting)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425085)

It's like an entity that spent billions of dollars building infrastructure now feels like they have some right to charge money for people that want to use it.

Yes, I know it was done with taxpayer money. But taxpayers decided to vote in a government that made it clear they were going to privatise it, and now it's a typical corporate entity - one that owns almost all the telecommunications infrastructure in the country - and now everyone has to cop it sweet.

I find it hard to believe that this Mark Pesce bloke moved to Australia without realising that it has, like, 10% of the population of the USA and thus probably isn't as technologically effete. It's like an Australian moving to Japan or Korea and being surprised that, shit, if you pack 10x the amount of people into 1/10th the space, it's easier to more connect people with cables.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20432055)

Melborne? I know, grammar Nazi and all, but that typo made the city's name peculiarly like the American pronounciation of the word; ironic considering that it came from a fellow Aussie. Good to see The Age hasn'e completely lost it yet, and fine pieces still appear on it from time to time...

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (2, Informative)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423965)

Basically not. The closest to multinational is #2 Telco Optus, owned by Singapore Telecommunications, in turned owned by the Singapore government.

AOHell gave up and sold their user base to Primus Telecommunications, who may be American owned, but not controlled as such.

ISPs won't be bullied by ARIA (australian RIAA) etc. as Aussie's are top pirates (forcing local TV networks to not seasonally delay American imports), and pay a hell of a lot for unfiltered internets. Considering internet here is sold in bandwidth quotas any limiting action above that is considered unacceptable by users and (some) ISP owners alike.

Re:Same ISPs as in the U.S.? (0, Offtopic)

james_orr (574634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425439)

Of course it makes them multinational. Just like the airport here calls itself an international airport because it has a couple flights to Canada.

Of course they won't (0, Troll)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423691)

Most of the biggest demands for broadband probably come from people who illegally download and/or upload copyrighted content. If those acitivities were forced to stop, those people would quite possibly be happy with dial-up. I bet that isn't a risk Australian ISPs are willing to take.

Re:Of course they won't (2, Insightful)

bonoboboy (1033874) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423789)

Besides, at the moment it's in the ISPs' best interest NOT to help the recording agencies out. They are, after all, a business and policing everyone's internet usage would cost a great deal of money. Are the recording industry peeps going to help pay for those costs? I didn't think so ...

Re:Of course they won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20423979)

Insightful my arse. Show me some figures to back your statements up.

Re:Of course they won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20424419)

My downloads in the last month, about 5GB linux distributions/oss software, a few hundred meg web browsing,500mg music, 30GB movies. I'm not proud of it, but i would go with the gp and say that a very large percentage of bandwidth is used for downloading copyrighted works.

Re:Of course they won't (4, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424377)

Well as you're 'Speaker of the truth,' I guess nobody likes the always on connection, modem latency isn't a problem, and people don't need the phone line free to talk to people.

Re:Of course they won't (1)

omnipresentbob (858376) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426477)

And WoW isn't a multi-million dollar available online only game; you can play it with your chums on your LAN connection you know

Re:Of course they won't (5, Insightful)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425445)

Most of the biggest demands for broadband probably come from people who illegally download and/or upload copyrighted content. If those acitivities were forced to stop, those people would quite possibly be happy with dial-up.
Who do you work for? MaBell? MS? **AA? I'm not sure what your angle is, but it would appear that you have no clue as to why the words you just typed are completely ignorant and devoid of the tiniest bit of truth. You want legitimate uses for bandwidth? How about Gaming; be it console or PC, they all share broadband online services. Or possibly streaming On Demand services from cable companies. What about the thousands of universities all over the place that send HUGE data files back and forth between researchers. But maybe you're right.. if those researchers want to cure cancer they can try doing it one packet at a time, huh? What about when Grandma Jones wants to see her newest grandson, but she's immobilized half a world away? I guess sending her video caps from the insanely expensive HD camera you bought just for that sort of thing is unnecessary. And I guess it's pretty stupid to think that people spend millions of dollars each year on fully-legit for-pay services like itunes, streaming netflix, and skype.
I won't even get into the problems with the copper infrastructure vs. fiber. I'll even leave the cost analysis out of the equation.

Re:Of course they won't (0)

Doogzee (765929) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426181)

We don't have half of the stuff you listed available in Australia, and even what is available hasn't really had a huge uptake due to capped Internet plans and that sort of thing.

Re:Of course they won't (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426363)

You certainly have medical research, you certainly have scientific research of all kinds, and you certainly have people who need a high-speed pipe to VPN into servers both inside and outside of Australia. You may not know them, you may not see them at work, but they are there, I assure you, and their work almost certainly makes your life better in some small way.

Re:Of course they won't (2, Funny)

Doogzee (765929) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429845)

I don't see what iTunes has to do with scientific and medical research.

Re:Of course they won't (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426351)

I think you missed the point. The GP didn't say there were no legitimate reasons for consuming large quantities of bandwidth, just that the majority of the bandwidth hogs are most likely downloading music/movies/software. You can't really provide great statistics to prove it either way, because most people do not want to admit to illegal activities. Do you honestly think that out of all the people out there consuming massive amounts of bandwidth, a good chunk of them AREN'T downloading music/movies/software?? I have seen articles on Slashdot [slashdot.org] before in the past saying that more than 30% of total internet bandwidth is used by Bittorrent. And yes, I know Bittorrent also has legitimate purposes, but I really don't think all those millions of folks are just downloading gigabytes of Linux releases....

Re:Of course they won't (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20427345)

Exactly!

That's why I, a computer geek who has never, even once (no seriously -- I haven't) used KaZaA, BitTorrent, Gnutella, etc. to download pirated music, am still using a 56K modem.

No, wait...I've got a DSL connection. Why did I spend the extra money to upgrade from dial-up to DSL? Oh, yeah...that's right...I got tired of waiting days for an anti-virus update (back when I still used Windows), I'm running a web and e-mail server at my house, I got tired of getting kicked off-line every time my wife called home, I wanted faster access for the multimedia that is used in so many web pages for the last...ummm...ten?...years.

:rolleyes:

Wrong, guy (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430283)

I work as an independent IT contractor to a huge media retailer in Australia, and part of my job involves grabbing an enormous amount of data (catalogues, etc) from various suppliers in various formats, and making these data fit our internal system - I have to receive & send this stuff from home, where I do my work.
All told, I go through ~60GB a month, and need a fast connection to satisfy the demands of a company that wants to be accurate to one minute ago. So thanks for your complete ignorance, but that's what it is. Think Steam, LEGAL movie downloads, ITMS, Linux distros, the list of large, legal files is never-ending.

Being carefull. (2, Interesting)

z0M6 (1103593) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423759)

Doing said dirty work could be risky. Termination based on loose accusations might end up in lawsuits. Somehow I got the feeling that they don't want any of those.

Re:Being carefull [sic] (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425635)

In any case, for once, I agree with Telstra. I've been laughing at them every time they've called in an attempt to get my business for the last few years, but kudos to them for telling the Mob to fuck off.

AFACT should pay the call center costs (4, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423773)

The issue here is the customer service costs (and loss of revenue). If an ISP cuts off a customer (rightfully or wrongfully), it's the ISP that pays for the irate calls from those customers and suffers from a loss of revenue. Even if the ISP uses an Indian call center, they still face several to tens of dollars in costs as the customer tries to determine why they were cut-off and how to regain service.

Assuming that people have a right to confront the accuser (AFACT), then shouldn't AFACT bear the labor costs of that confrontation?

Re:AFACT should pay the call center costs (2, Interesting)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424035)

not to mention the upfront costs of adding systems and personnel to identify users who are distributing copyrighted works.

This requires very intrusive and labor intensive monitoring of P2P streams. In most countries, the copyright holder is responsible for enforcing their own copyright. For good reason.

Also, the people who would work for the ISP and end up with this job would likely have even less motivation than the ISP. It'd be a pretty demoralizing job.

From the putative ISP copyright holders' protection team cubes:

"User 1, day 1: No P2P."
"User 2, day 1: Linux distro."
"User 3, day 1: Teenagers who can't play guitar distributing own noise pollution. Note, may be the Wyld Stalyns. Extend monitoring to check for time travel signatures and alert labels' contracting groups."
"User 4, day 1: No P2P."
"User 5, day 1: Avril Lavigne. Forget it; that copyright's worthless anyways."
"User 6, day 1: Linux again."
"User 7, day 1: ... ...
"User 9999999, day 1: "No P2P."
"Whew, we're done. What a waste of time."

Hmm... (4, Interesting)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423833)

A report produced last year by web monitoring company Envisional found the per capita rate of television show piracy in Australia was the highest in the world. It said Australians accounted for 15.6 per cent of all online TV piracy.

I find that part particularly interesting purely because of the idea of pirating TV shows, how, exactly, do you pirate TV shows? Watching them on TV is a free service, you have also been able to record from the TV for a very long time, what exactly is the difference between recording from the TV, and downloading the show from the net, and how does that effect the broadcasting industry?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20423897)

Easy, watching the shows without watching ads, and also watching shows that have not yet been aired in Australia.

Such as watching Heroes as it airs on the US, Doctor Who as it airs in the UK and Bleach as it airs in Japan, rather than waiting the months to years it takes shows to turn up on TV around here.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424043)

You can record for private use, not for distribution. Also, downloaded copies remove the commercials, which is the way that the tv episodes are paid for. In fact, the article on wikipedia for audio ripping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_music_ripping) notes that several companies sued for the removal of the commercials. One less person watching the show means that many fewer advertising dollars from the companies. Tivo does affect this now though also, which nielson is working on.

However, I am not sure if anyone has ever taken into account the fact that someone could miss an episode of a show. If he doesn't download it, he may not watch again for a while. If he does, he may miss the one episodes commercials, but is much more likely to see the ones from the next episodes.

The key thing to remember is that most people who are prosecuted are prosecuted for uploading (distributing), not downloading. That is what takes it out of the fair use arena.

Re:Hmm... (3, Interesting)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424357)

They're worried about the advertisement being removed and being able to resell the content. Of course, the advertisement revenu is somewhat of a Red Herring, since the model already presumes all the revenue stems from the initial broadcast or rebroadcast (i.e., the cost is based on viewership for the time slot; so the advertiser's bought the attention of the estimated number of viewers).

They're also worried that Internet availability undermines their availability to sell advertising for rebroadcasts and might impact packaged sale of shows on DVD. There's a better argument for that.

I think that, increasingly, but removing their shows from Internet distribution they're undercutting exposue of their properties to a wide audience. There's plenty of opportunity to capitalize on content without adhereing to an onerous in-broadcast advertising model.

Re:Hmm... (4, Informative)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424625)

One of the major reasons cited for downloading TV here is the time delay from the US/UK. In the bad old days it took 3-4 years for ST:TNG to start here. Must have been the dubbing delay. We then got the shuffled season 1 and 2, the graveyard time-slot and irregular schedules. Back then people got around it by mailing VHS tapes.

So when Australian networks treat a show like garbage, downloading gives you a better product with more reliable timing. The counter for this is that we are now getting some shows within weeks of the original airing. Californication is about two weeks delayed. This helps protect the ad revenue.

Re:Hmm... (3, Funny)

soulsteal (104635) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426559)

The dubbing wasn't the delay. Rewriting the script so that all the guys are named Bruce? That takes FOREVER!

Re:Hmm... (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430379)

When they showed them in Australia somebody decided to sort them all by theme. Thus we ended up with all the "Wesley saves the day" episodes from season 1 and 2 in a block right after the first episode. Waiting up until midnight to watch effectively a rewrite of the previous weeks episode was a bit annoying - I couldn't just set the video as the show before it ran up to an hour over time or sometimes finished early. I still have no idea why I ended up seeing all of ST:NG after an intro like this.

Re:Hmm... (2, Insightful)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425175)

It also says,

slow down or terminate user accounts that AFACT has determined are being used to distribute copyrighted works.

I upload copyrighted works all the time, such as this Slashdot post. I also upload source code I have written to my web page. I share free software with people. Looks like AFACT would have shut someone like me down.

Or we can stop saying broad things like this. The University of Kansas says, "if you are caught downloading copyrighted material [slashdot.org] , you will lose your ResNet privileges forever." You can't use the Internet without downloading copyrighted material. Unless you have spent your life in a coma, you are probably a copyright holder yourself. Even if you are not (for some odd reason), there are lots of copyrighted works [gnu.org] that you have permission to share with anyone.

Re:Hmm... (1)

johndmann (946896) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426347)

I assume that "unauthorized" is simply being implied here. While it makes more sense to include the distinction, most people who read this know that this is what they mean. As for inclusion in a legal agreement of some nature, it should be specified, yes.

Re:Hmm... (2, Informative)

wylf (657051) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426933)

exactly, do you pirate TV shows? ... you have also been able to record from the TV for a very long time

In fact, it has only been a recent development where recording a TV show to VHS or similar *hasn't* been illegal in Australia. The only provision for personal media recording used to be for live performances.

From memory, this changed sometime in 2006

Futurama (2, Informative)

kramulous (977841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429055)

When Futurama first came to Australia, it was aired 11.30pm on a Tuesday night. It was like this the first year and then it disappeared because of 'lack of interest from the viewing public'. The networks would show the first 6 episodes of the first season and then cut to the fourth season, then back to the 2nd season. You knew this was going on because there were characters that you 'knew' had been developed earlier. DVD's were not available until several years later. If you want me to start purchasing the DVD of new tv shows, air then properly so I can begin to enjoy them. Then I want to go out and be able to purchase the DVD once I decide I like. If you muck this order up, what do you expect?

Re:Hmm... (1)

typidemon (729497) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430485)

Ignoring the fact that Australian TV caters only for the lowest common denominator, and as such we have the best collection of the worst shit from around the world. TV piracy is a huge problem because the TV networks have been bending us over a barrel for years.

Until very, very, recently Australian TV networks would sometimes take years to get a new TV series to Australia. It had to be a proven success somewhere in the world before anybody would pick it up here. Nobody, ever risked a new TV show that hadn't been a proven success. In fact, the only thing that started shaping up TV was TV Piracy.

Even when a show does get to Australia, most networks constantly mess with it's time slot leaving the viewer with no idea when their show is actually going to be on the air. ST:TNG is a good reference started off at 7:30 Tuesdays, slowly crept up to 11:30 Tuesdays then over the course of the next 6 years went through every single night of the week.

Because of this, it didn't come to a great surprise when good shows don't rate well in Australia. Well, it didn't come as a great surprise to anybody who has half a brain (obviously nobody on tv networks has even half a brain).

First ever positive Telstra comment... (2, Insightful)

splutty (43475) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423841)

Scary... This must be the first positive thing I've ever heard about Telstra. I'm wondering how long they're going to maintain that stand. Call me cynical, but I'm quite sure the next step is 'buy the government'..

Re:First ever positive Telstra comment... (1)

cute-boy (62961) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429921)

I doubt Telstra are taking this line in the interests of their customers however (now that really would be a first).

The Telsta monopoly (yes, it is a monopoly) is currently having a very public row with the Australian government regarding it's 'fibre to the node' proposal, in the context of the ongoing and upcoming election issue of broadband access to the Australian consumer (including small/medium business consumers).

I seriously doubt Telstra have any moral or ethical issues this sort of proposed monitoring.

The less bandwith they supply to people, the more money they can potentially make from their infrastructure. They will just be attempting to piss off the government even more, perhaps setting this up to be a bargaining chip for later negotiations and for use in future lobbying.

It is just that for once, the outcome is good for the consumer.

-RG

Re:First ever positive Telstra comment... (1)

humpy101 (1042972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20430873)

I know! I can't believe that I am feeling good about Telstra right now. Ohh, I feel all dirty, time for a shower...

Idiots (3, Insightful)

SlashDark (1150245) | more than 6 years ago | (#20423909)

With all the zombie computers, trojaned by kids or simply hacked ones it would be easy to make victims download copyrighted stuff without them even knowing it. And so the ISPS would have to either shut down those people's accounts (even though they didn't do anything) or have loads of work to find the one who hacked the computer, and most of the time they probably can't.

It's not wrong to distribute copyrighted works... (5, Insightful)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424245)

... and that's really the crux of the matter. Every picture you take, every letter you write, every story you tell, whatever you create is copyrighted -- by you. You have every right in the world to distribute your creations and you expect to. When you browse a company's web-site, you are receiving images and content that are, ostensibly, copyrighted by them which they also freely distribute so that you can view them on your own computer.

The key is not that a work is copyrighted, but rather that the distribution occurs without the permission of the copyright holder. There's where it gets sticky. The ISP knows you are exchanging copyrighted works because everything is copyrighted. What the indutry is asking for is that the ISP identify specific chunks of data for which the distribution constitutes infringement. But how can the ISP know whether infringement is taking place?

For something to be infringing, they will need to know whether or not the sender of the content is the copyright holder, a licensee for the content with permission to redistribute (like iTunes), the terms under which the content may be distributed (only if fee collected and DRM in place), whether those terms are met (valid credit card number used / the user hasn't implemented a hack to remove DRM), whether the copyright has expired (there are still some copyrights that expire), or whether the distribution constitutes an exception to copyright protection (such as a "fair use" under US law). How can the ISP possibly know these things?

Well, they can't possibly distinguish (doubly so if the content is encrypted). Some of those things can only be answered by a court.

Nevermind it being an unnecessary burden on ISPs or a violation of their customers, the ISP is simply unable to know the legal context in which data is distributed and whether it may constitute infringement. Any accusation of that sort would necessarily need to be vetted through the approriate legal authority, not the ISP.

Technical solution (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 6 years ago | (#20428455)

For something to be infringing, they will need to know whether or not the sender of the content is the copyright holder, a licensee for the content with permission to redistribute (like iTunes), the terms under which the content may be distributed (only if fee collected and DRM in place), whether those terms are met (valid credit card number used / the user hasn't implemented a hack to remove DRM), whether the copyright has expired (there are still some copyrights that expire), or whether the distribution constitutes an exception to copyright protection (such as a "fair use" under US law). How can the ISP possibly know these things?

Simply put, what we (and they) need is a set of extensions to TCP/IP so that a copyright information header is prepended to every payload, specifying in detail the rights the source host has in propagating the packet in question. These will have to be added to every packet and the TCP/IP standard will have to be rewritten, but it shouldn't affect service levels due to cheap and ubiquitous broadband.

Re:Technical solution (2, Insightful)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20431063)

Just setting the evil bit on packets containing unauthorised copies should be sufficient.

Judge, Jury, and Executioner? (0)

xmarkd400x (1120317) | more than 6 years ago | (#20424803)

I AM THE LAW!!!

Copyright infringement != theft (2, Informative)

Enlarged to Show Tex (911413) | more than 6 years ago | (#20425009)

How many times do I have to say it?

600lb Koala (aka Gorilla, aussie style) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20425821)

yea, good luck with that one ARIA/AFACT. Telstra employ one of the largest legal teams in Australia and regularly, and very sucessfully i might add, defend itself against a litegious government department (ACCC) many times a year for the last 5 years since privatisation. I think their meeting would go like this..

1) AFACT: "Stop your users from downloading our content now!"
2) Telstra: "Umm.. No. What else ya got?"
3) ?
4) Telstra: Profit!

But hey, don't take my word for it, ARIA, AFACT, what ever you are called. Please, try it out a couple of times. It's not like you would be around for much longer after Telstra are finished with you.
(I can see their web site now. A big Telstra logo at the top/middle of the page and in large lettering, p0wned

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (2, Informative)

AI0867 (868277) | more than 6 years ago | (#20426023)

Copyright Theft eh? is that when you take someone else's copyrights and use them for your own purposes?

maybe like what verizon [slashdot.org] did?

remember people, copyright infringement != theft

Australian Copyrights Act (3, Informative)

KuRa_Scvls (932317) | more than 6 years ago | (#20429583)

Australian Copyrights Act clearly protects ISPs from legal action through the copyright infringement of the users of ISPs.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ ca1968133/s116aa.html [austlii.edu.au]

[116AA to 116AG] [Press next if you want to read them all]

Quite frankly, I think this is a great legislation, understanding that the ISPs do not, and should not have

any liabilities thrown at them for something their customers have been doing behind their back.

Is there a similar legislation in America?

Re:Australian Copyrights Act (2, Interesting)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#20431639)

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. However, there is this section:

(3) For an infringement of copyright that occurs in the course of the carrying out of a Category A activity, the relief that a court may grant against a carriage service provider is limited to one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order requiring the carriage service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access to an online location outside Australia;
(b) an order requiring the carriage service provider to terminate a specified account.

(4) For an infringement of copyright that occurs in the course of the carrying out of a Category B, C or D activity, the relief that a court may grant against a carriage service provider is limited to one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order requiring the carriage service provider to remove or disable access to infringing copyright material, or to a reference to infringing copyright material;
(b) an order requiring the carriage service provider to terminate a specified account;
(c) some other less burdensome but comparably effective nonmonetary order if necessary.

So while it protects them from monetary damages, it seems ARIA has a case under those laws. Not the reassurance I was hoping for.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>