Content owners reject ISP piracy scheme

Content owners reject ISP piracy scheme

Summary: Internet service providers (ISPs) have failed to win over content groups to a new proposed copyright-infringement notice scheme aimed at reducing incidence of piracy.

SHARE:

Internet service providers (ISPs) have failed to win over content groups to a new proposed copyright-infringement notice scheme aimed at reducing incidence of piracy.

The proposal, released by the Communications Alliance, Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Internode and Primus last week, would see an ISP provide one education notice, three warning notices and one discovery notice to customers alleged to have infringed on copyright by the copyright holder, and, if a customer continued to infringe after this, the ISPs would tell the rights holder, which may then decide to apply for a subpoena to get access to the customer's details for legal action.

Although lawyers suggest that such a system may shield ISPs from legal action from content owners — such as the ongoing dispute between iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) — it is reliant on those content owners taking part for it to be successful.

The Australian Content Industry Group (ACIG), which represents organisations such as the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA), Microsoft, the Business Software Alliance (BSA), Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) and the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (IGEA), has yet to be convinced of the benefits of the ISPs' proposal, saying in a statement that the system does not balance the process between ISPs and content owners.

"The ACIG and its members had been working hard to focus on the best possible solution to address the continuing and growing damage which internet piracy has on content owners. ACIG does not think the scheme proposed by Communications Alliance and its members creates a balanced process, and it falls well short of the expectations we had had for an open, balanced and fair solution," ACIG spokesperson Vanessa Hutley said.

"We continue to hope that we can engage in positive discussions to bring about a solution to this important issue."

The lobby group has previously advocated a US-style system (PDF) that would see repeat infringers have their accounts suspended for a period of time.

Two of the members of the ACIG — ARIA and the Australian Performing Rights Association (APRA) — will argue tomorrow afternoon in the High Court in favour of AFACT's case against iiNet over authorising copyright infringement. AFACT itself has thus far declined to comment on the proposed piracy model, instead focusing on this week's landmark court case.

Topics: Piracy, Government AU, Security, Telcos

About

Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

2 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • It seems that the content corporations may not really want to see 'an open, balanced and fair solution' to the wider question of achieving a workable outcome for both creators and consumers.

    Perhaps, instead of changing their marketing practices to meet current and future needs of users, the corporations think that their battalions of very expensive lawyers can keep us all comfortably (for them) back in the 1950s, which is probably when many parts of their current marketing structures were being developed?
    anonymousI
  • What is it that industry bigwigs fear to lose by embracing the Internet? If anything else, they are damaging themselves more by fighting back against piracy, which is only being produced by their non-consideration into developing a web-based service providing readily available and affordable content.

    Yes, we do have iTunes and Bandit.fm (Sony-affiliated music service) for music (which would be better if there wasn't such a gap between US and Australian services, but anyway), but we have nothing reliable for video (I had a check of Quickflix... there are a few good titles, but their range is severely limited (I counted 214 titles available), and the majority of them would not have as broad an audience or interest as would make it worthwhile).
    dmh_paul