Slashdot Mirror
ARIA Threatens To Sue Internet Service Providers
tymbow writes "It seems that ARIA (The Australian Record Industry Association, like the RIAA) is threatening to sue ISPs who allow the illegal download of copyrighted music. Could this lead to a situation where Australian ISPs are forced to actively censor websites and P2P protocols? What happens to legitimate P2P content like Linux distributions? It will be interesting to see where this goes."
I'm currently programming forum software. If this succeeds somehow, it's basically saying that as a provider of a service, even indirectly, I am responsible for all use of that service.
Users should be responsible for THEIR OWN use of the service. If you're going to punish something (and sorry about agreeing with the RIAA here, if only in theory), punish the act of breaking the law, not the catalyst that allows it.
My code doesn't tell between good and evil, sorry.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
NExt they can sue the phone companies, then the post office, and hell, lets sue the highway department, theyre all used to carry illegal music.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Yeah, about as interesting as a lighted candle inserted rectally.
I have a question. I'm no network engineer, so I don't really know... how would ISPs enforce something like this? Isn't the whole notion of a P2P network that you can't really control it? How would ISPs monitor when users are sharing files and put a stop to it?
Or are we talking about something that's essentially unenforceable, but ARIA wants it enforced anyway?
But the main point is that ISPs have common carrier status and can be no more liable for copyright infringement than the phone company can for the playing of music over the telephone.
I have been pwned because my
Is ARIA what you get when you rot-13 encrypt RIAA? Wait, did I just violate the DMCA by saying that? Better go get my tinfoil hat.
It seems that they're trying to get the ISPs to accept responsiblity for their users' actions. You can sue another large company without nearly as much negative press as suing individual users, but the tricky part is that the ISPs actually have money and the need to fight.
So, the ARIA is trying to get them to accept it, and if they don't there'll probably be a PR campaign aimed at the politicians and lawmakers to pressure them to hold the ISPs responsible. If it goes over well for the ARIA, you can be damn sure the RIAA will try the same.
"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
Australia turns off Internet access for entire nation.
"Filing individual lawsuits against every ISP proved to be too expensive. We were going to file a class-action lawsuit against ISPs as media which make pirating music and movies possible, but Telstra and the other major ISPs just ended up folding," said a government official on condition of anonymity.
The official would not comment on whether radio stations would be sued for distributing songs over the airwaves without encryption and rights management.
"It's premature, but all I can say is that we're considering it."
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
It's just hard to tell who's fault it is.
In the Untied [sic] States, the people who post copyrighted works without authorization and without exemption are direct infringers. The person who operates a server is a contributory infringer if the server has no substantial non-infringing use and a vicarious infringer if he has the authority to police the server and profits from the infringement. I don't know about Australian law, but these sound like the sort of extensions of the scope of dog-standard Berne copyright that any common-law country's judges would create.
Im not entirely sure how they will manage to enforce this in the end.
Sure, you can block ports, but ports can be changed.
Sure, you can scan for certain protocols in use, but protocols can be masked by ssh and the like.
I think the main issue being missed here is that P2P is not inherantly illegal. A car could be deemed illegal, because you *can* run over and kill a person. But trying to illegalise all four-wheeled automotive transport is clearly madness. Well, for the moment anyway...
This is fair. After all Kylie Minogue, Men at Work, and the remaining members of INXS (note to self: don't masturbate with a belt around your neck.) all need to eat, after all.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Well, ISPs could block a known port or range of ports. IIRC, gnutella uses 6346 as a default. Block all traffic on 6346 and that'd stop gnutella traffic for the most part.
And users could get past that by changing the default port. I'm not on gnutella but I'm pretty sure that's possible. If it isn't currently, it could be with a quick patch.
Then, ISPs could sniff traffic and look for mp3-ish content. And block that.
And the next gen file swapper would simply encrypt packets, making sniffing computationally unfeasable.
So the short answer is no, ISPs could not enforce this. They could throw up roadblocks, but they would eventually just be speedbumps.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Most ISPs don't own their own fiber so it's just as much a farse to sue ISPs as it would be to sue the telco that does own the fiber.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Oh no! The ISPs will block my favorite ports! I might have to change the settings of my P2P programs! Oh the inconvenience!
Seriously though. They are only doing this because when they go out of business they wont have any money with which to pay for frivolous lawsuits. Better now than never I guess.
And this lawsuit and ten million more like it, and a thousand clever laws and all the DRM in the world wont change the fact that their business model is fundamentally screwed and nothing is going to bring back the scarcity upon which their profits are based.
You can outlaw camcorders in video theaters in New York, but what if today's pirate is in Hong Kong? I saved 10 bucks by seeing Matrix Revolutions with chinese subtitles. It was barely worth watching for free (as I suspected), so I will definitely not be catching it in the theatere or on DVD.
Fuck you and your shitty sequels hollywood. I only pay for high quality product now. I intend to see return of king in the theaters and also get the trilogy DVD when the boxed set is released. I am an informed customer, only one of a growing group.
I don't know how it would fit with the ISP actually hosting the files though... One would suppose that that would make that site the "server" and would make the ISP liable.
In the United States, the ISP is typically considered to have the ability to police the use of its servers after having received a takedown notice detailing the URLs or IP addresses where infringing copies are available. I'm pretty sure that even in the absence of a direct Australian counterpart to the Dumbest Mistake on Copyright in America, which codified the procedure for sending takedown notices, such a takedown letter tradition could be forged from the common law technique of cease-and-desist letters.
Hey, we're not responsible for Mel Gibson, alright? He was born american, and he's american now. He just trained here.... Even Russell Crowe was born in unzud, but he lives here.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
In other news the NAAFP (National Association for the Advancement of Fat People) is suing cows for "aiding and abetting" the exploitation of obese Americans.
In an unrelated case, a New York City woman is suing a concrete manufacturer for providing a pavement in which a Manhattan man had grounded himself whil illegally blowing a puff of cigerette smoke in her face.
What will likely happen is that it'll hang in court forever as arguments over legitimate uses drag out. ISPs will say that there are legitimate uses of P2P protocols, ARIA will argue that intent is still to infringe on copyright, ISPs will counter by demanding proof, ARIA will say there are differences between documented purpose and implied purpose, and it'll just go on and on. And in the end, users will simply use proxies located outside of Australia, or use encrypted transfers. Difficult to stop a ball this size once it's gotten rolling, and it looks like ARIA might be poised to find that one out the hard way.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
This is crap. Poor journalism too.
IANAL, but it's my understanding that the Communications and Privacy acts make it illegal for telco's and ISP's to snoop on customer activity (wiretapping). As such, they are not responsible for what their users do. They are also not entitled to reveal the details of users who are up to illegal activity unless compelled to by a court or the police.
A while ago there was a thread in the Internode forum on Whirlpool about this, where one of Internode's representatives explained it all (well, what their lawyers told them)
Screw hollywood and the recording industry.
What a stupid fuckstick. That goes double for the moderator.
It's the Australian Record Industry Association.
Artists are only part of that. Other parts of it is distributors, record companies, etc.
That includes Australian companies selling music by foreign artists.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I was talking about this very topic with someone yesterday. It appears the ARIA is trying to use wording in Australian copyright law to claim ISPs are responsible for the copyright infingement of people who use their network. It's a stupid and somewhat illogical claim, but not really all that surprising.
Some high profile lawyers have already had a say on the issue, and have stated that ISPs would likely be in breach of the more recent privacy act if they were to implement the sort of censorship the ARIA is demanding.
As an aside, it must be said that both copyright and privacy laws have some serious issues in this country. It is illegal to copy music from a CD in any shape or form. You cannot legally burn copyrighted CDs to use them in your car, you cannot legally make MP3s from copyrighted music to use on your PC regardless of whether you purchased the music or not. Also, the new privacy act is so over the top in some places that it is virtually impossible for some organisations to come into compiance with it without breaking it in the process...
---
Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
While there may be some caveats limiting P2P, it is a good thing to do.
Sharing music and movies is illegal, ethically wrong etc etc. Please, accept the fact.
Why people on slashdot whine about limiting illegal act, while they certanly want to reveil every valid legal point, which makes SCO case seem unvalid?
And, don't get me wrong: I use Linux and GNU tools on most of my work, and I really hate what SCO is trying to do.
Free software should not be destroyed / harmed by P2P illegalities. Music makers and record industry has copyrights on their stuff. Let them share their stuff the way they want, that's their freedom. As we know, not all freedom means free as in money. Music costs, and we should pay if we want it. If we want free music, then we better do it by ourself, not steel from the others.
Worrying about problems P2P limiting would do to open source is FUD. Linux is not shared by KaZaa and others. Do not spread FUD anymore, accept that music costs and pay if you need it.
Eleknader
First they came for the Americans
and I did not speak out
because I was not an American.
Then they came for the Australians
and I did not speak out
because I was not an Australian.
Then they came for the Linux users
and I did not speak out
because I was running NetBSD.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me
except for the slashdot crowd
but nobody was listening to them anyway.
"Well, golly, Mr. ARIA, I guess we could do that. But you see, it'd take an awful lot of people watching what happens, and a lot of computers and software for them to do their jobs. That's going to run into a lot of money. So what say we ask the government to help us get this paid for? We'll was them to pass a bill for a new tax. Since it's to protect music, it just makes sense that it's a tax on music. We figure of you charge, say, 40% on top of the cost of a CD, that should cover it. You pass that along to us, and we'll do our best.
Mr. ARIA? Where you going? Mr. ARIA, don't you want to catch all them bad song stealing people out there?
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I would like to point out that although authorisation of illegal copying is general regarded as a breach of Copyright in Australia, there are plenty of exceptions to this rule.
The exception of most interest here was introduced by the Digital Agenda copyright reforms in 2000. They are sections 39B (for works) and 112E (for subject matter other than works) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). These sections preclude from the infringement by authorisation provisions anyone who provides a communication service.
The purpose of the introduction of these sections was precisely to prevent the big record labels going after ISPs for something which, as pointed out before, they legally have no control over (due to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)).
I personally cannot see how such litigation can be successful in the courts in light of sch provisions unless there is some other way of reading the wording "not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright".
Michael Speck said ISPs relied on illegal music downloads for 20 per cent of their revenue
Oh, and I suppose they've got verifiable statistics from the ISPs they're about to sue to back this up? (more on this later)
Well it's not their job to be police here, they provide a service which is mostly legitimately used.
"We understand from employees of Internet companies that up to 20 per cent of their revenue in many cases comes from traffic created by downloading illegal sound recordings.
Oh here it is, the old unnamed source trick. Dubya likes that one too! And how many people really told them this, out of how many ISPs? Somehow, I doubt that's going to be a high ratio.
"There aren't many business that could survive if 20 per cent of their revenue disappeared
Reality check time. I should think quite a lot of companies have seen at least this much reduction in revenue in the last couple of years. They may have laid off a heckuvalot of people, but I think they survived! And, ISPs will all go bust if MP3s are no longer downloaded? Come on! Even assuming this wild 20% number, maybe they'll just adjust their business models, adapt to the changing environment, you know, like they do all the time anyway. The internet has such a fast rate of change that this is perfectly normal for any company based around it.
Mr Speck urged ISPs to halt the practice by blocking access to illegal music download sites and programs or "by other arrangements".
This brings us back all the usual censorship arguments, like who gets to decide which sites are blocked, on what grounds, with what oversigth, what appeals process etc. etc. Like I said before, ISPs are not police, and are certainly not judge/jury/executioner.
music piracy was "a growing market"
And your proof of this is? Your sales have also declined, in the middle of a global depression? Right!
What a load of bull! I know the writer of the article does present both sides, but she could have tried to find some real figures herself, instead of just presenting a series of quotes and counterquotes. Don't these people know what research is? Why should people get away with spouting whatever wild claims they like with no backup?
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal