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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
IMO, what they're going to end up doing is throttling upload bandwidth on broadband connections to a tiny trickle; just enough to type in URLs or transmit your mouse coordinates in an online game. That would basically be the end of P2P networks: without any fast uplinks, P2P traffic would be starved down to dial-up speeds.
The ISPs would like to do this anyway because they really want you to pay extra for a commercial account to run any kind of server. The small number of high-cost commercial accounts will be easy to police for piracy.
The Internet will devolve back into a model like broadcast radio and television, with a few large publishers broadcasting unidirectionally to the masses. The general public's contribution to the Internet will largely be limited to text posts on blogs complaining about the situation.
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
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.