ZDnet story on developements today in the AFACT versus aussie ISP court case. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/AFACT-bombarded-iiNet-wi...

Cobden [isp's defence lawyer] yesterday worked towards reducing the number of alleged breaches of copyright that had been collected by AFACT's two investigators, which were claimed by AFACT's barrister Tony Bannon to have reached 100,000 instances. Cobden told Justice Cowdroy that BitTorrent file-sharing were often pre-configured to be left open for sharing, meaning that many of the alleged breaches were actually single instances.

What's an ISP to do after recieving 100,000 allegations of coyright infringment? just do what hollwood says & disconnect every customer? All on one accuser's say so?

Or is the ISP supposed to spend the time and money investigating all these accusations as an unpaid copyright police force and justice system?

iinet chose to refer the complaints to the Australian police. - and now they're defending themselves in court for "allowing copyright infringment" to occur.

i don't think APRA actually realise they're shitting all over the NZ internet industry and users rights to preserve their traditional revenue.

Spending a moment trying on their shoes - it would look initially like a glorious new world under new legislation. Wearing their shoes, i can see how *angry* the "theft" of their member's work via blatant sharing without permission feels.

They can take down these "thieves" using this law. But are they really so selfish they can't see all the casualties caught in the cross fire?

How can we explain it to them?

This new copyright law threatens the livelihood of those that work on the internet.

This law tramples on New Zealander's rights (artists included).

This law discriminates against those doing business on the interent - if you're accused of copyright in print or broadcast then you need proof, right to a trial, and you don't get summarily punished immediately. They don't remove a TV stations ability to broadcast, or a Magazine's right to publish immediately apon infringment accusation. The new copyright law will remove an internet business abiltiy to do any business immediately apon accusation.

This law discriminates against New Zealanders - we're left with the extra costs passed on by ISPs who become an unpaid copyright police force - we're also left with the threat of summary disconnection, website takedowns, and for some businesses the expense of a secondary connection just in case someone makes an accusation.

A story, out of italy - and i only have the recording industry's version here:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20090127.html

It's an online music retailer, that believed they had paid all fees for the rights to sell some music (they purchased the rights from the author of the music) - but it turns out they missed out paying a fee to the recording company.

The first court threw out the charges - but the appeals court resulted in a guilty verdict (i'm not sure how italian legal system works, but it seems appeals court can do that).

So, now they pay this fee surely?? no - they're now being sent to a prison - on a criminal sentence. That's shocking that something like copyright infringment isn't a civil case. The defendants also have to refund 80,000 euros of legal costs to the recording company.

Okay, so that's italy -- why do you need to worry, you're in (insert country that's not italy).
Then check this wishlist item from leaked ACTA Treaty documents:

2. Provide criminal sanctions for any act of copyright infringement that takes place on a commercial scale, including in the online environment, regardless of whether such acts are undertaken with a financial incentive.

That's the US' RIAA's wishlist for an international trade agreement that's been negoriated with New Zealand, Canada, UK, Japan... and more countries.

from wikipedia

Music pirates will not be disconnected from the internet - Times OnlineSource: entertainment.timeso...Internet service providers will not be forced to disconnect users who repeatedly flout the law by illegally sharing music and video files, The Times has learnt.    (note: this is the UK - not New Zealand)    

So the new copyright act says we're allowed to "format shift" sound -- but only sound.
We're not allowed to format shift video, or images, or text.

from the MED FAQ:

Why is there a format shifting provision and why is it limited to sound recordings?

The new format shifting provision responds to the concern that people want to transfer music they have legitimately bought onto different devices to take advantage of new technology. It also recognises this has been common practice for a long time.

The markets for audio visual works and music are evolving, they are different. There are numerous business models for audiovisual works that do not apply to music. Theatrical release, commercial rental (both physical and online models), free-to-air TV and pay TV do not have counterparts of any significant extent for music. It is also unlikely that consumption of audio visual works "on the move" using mp3 players and the like will ever be as ubiquitous as for music. It is not, therefore, possible to simply apply the conclusions reached about music to audio visual works.

the argument seems to be that something needs to be "ubiquitous", otherwise we'll make it illegal. (It also seems strange to say that people don't want to consume audio visual works on the move - have they never been on a long haul flight?)

The whole document ignores other forms that creative works take.

There are so many fronts on which the "freedom" of the internet is under attack in my own country, neighbouring countries, and elsewhere.

Here in New Zealand a new copyright act went into effect on 1st November. The most controversial clause has been delayed until 28th February. This clause says that an ISP must have a policy of disconnecting anyone repeatedly accused of copyright infringment. ...

That's accusation only. There's no oppourtunity to defend yourself, no recourse for reconnection, and there's no penalty for false accusations. If you want someone off the internet you need only repeatedly accuse them of copyright infringement ("repeatedly" has legal precidents to mean 3 times). Aparently file sharing is so bad you don't even get a trial (can they not see where that logic leads?). Even pedaphiles get a trial before they are considered guilty and punished. I could not continue my occupation if i was disconnected.

There's also that great treaty called "ACTA" - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which on the surface is defending against fake prada handbags, but also fake baby prams (won't someone please think of the children!).. and fake medicines. I'm unsure if they mean cheap generic medicines that infringes patents, or if they mean dangerous medicines that aren't what they say on the labels -- but regardless, the Music and Film industry have been asked for their wishlist (to crack down on those dangerous counterfeit music tracks). The problem is the countries participating in ACTA negotiations have signed with the USA that they will not reveal the contents of the treaty until after they ratify it.

The public were asked for submissions in New Zealand, but how the frack am i to send a submission on a treaty when i cannot see the contents of it?

In the EU a group of citizens used their official information act to force the EU council to reveal the contents of this treaty... the Council said No. Who are they accountable to? Aparently not to their citizens and not to their own laws.

Within the wishlists of RIAA is making ISPs liable for copyright infringement that happens through their networks.. This we need to be very vocal about. How's an ISP to know whether a data packet contains a copyright infringement?? by only allowing you to talk to sony.com + apple.com ?

In other news, Australia looks like it's about to force all isps to enforce a blacklist of IPs. The result is all of Australia's internet access being filtered, in the on going mission to stamp out child porn. Their internet is going to get horribly slow, and it's not going to stop child porn. You just know the black list (a huge collection of child porn website urls) is going to leak out straight into the hands of the folks who want these urls. I hear a politician is trying to get a list of all R18 sites and add that to a list also. That's some huge list to check against on every packet. (not just port 80, otherwise it'd be too easy to bypass).