magic anti-piracy wand

, posted: 24-Jan-2009 19:38

Over in Oz, where new copyright law is worded almost the same as in New Zealand, ISPs decided it is only "reasonable circumstances" to disconnect their customer from the internet when there is a court order, and accusations in unclear cases they referred onwards to police and then a large group of content publishers sued an isp "for allowing piracy". (November 2008) Here's a quote-worthy quote from the CEO of that ISP:
"I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it" iiNet CEO Michael Malon
You gotta wonder where this might head - if an ISP is liable for copyright infringment crimes through their network, what other crimes are they liable for. Blackmail. stolen credit card numbers. underage gambling. underage pornography. unlicenced medical treatment. .. so many crimes and torts must be possible down an internet pipe, is the ISP to take the blame for those too? And it's easier to sue an ISP - you can find them without breaking privacy laws. p.s. it's "copyright infringement", not piracy, and not theft - those are completely different crimes.

Other related posts:
Draconian copyright law: Section 92 a SCRAPPED
Section 92 - Public Demonstration
will new zealand extend copyright to 80 years after artist death?

Permalink to magic anti-piracy wand | Add a comment (4 comments) | Main Index

Comment by kinsten, on 26-Jan-2009 13:58

I guess one day, it will not be a worth while industry to be an ISP, and then competition will go down, and internet will become black market.

Author's note by taniwha, on 26-Jan-2009 14:08

the act's definition of "ISP" is anyone who provides internet to others (e.g. an employer, a library, a school) and anyone who has a website.

Comment by Dratsab, on 26-Jan-2009 19:45

It's a hard line to tread for the ISP's, and things aren't set to become any easier with the impending law change.  My sta2nce is without adequate proof from a copyright holder, why should the ISP have to act?

And even then they should be going to the user with a please explain - if they "look" at what is being downloaded, they are breaching privacy in the same way a postal worker opening private mail would be.

I don't advocate copyright infringement, but I certainly don't like invasive laws (like "section 92A") which are based outside of legal circles and which specifically exclude legal remedies - except against those caught helplessly in the middle.

Comment by SeanC, on 27-Jan-2009 17:03

Related video:

Interesting watch, it's some mini-doco interviewing the heads of ISPs in Australia about both child porn filtering (govt-controlled blacklist) and the interception/disconnection of file sharing for "criminal" purposes ("piracy").

-- Sean

Add a comment

Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted. E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.

Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and shown in this blog post.

Your name:

Your e-mail:

Your webpage:

taniwha's profile

Wally (Brenda) 
Te Whanganui O Tara
New Zealand