Aardvark Daily

The world's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 30th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Please visit the sponsor!

Aussie ISP sued for providing internet access

21 November 2008

Recently, NZ has seen some rather nasty new aspects introduced to its copyright laws.

Thanks to these changes, someone only has to allege that you're illegally downloading copyrighted material and your ISP is obliged by law to disconnect you.

I (and many of NZ's other tech-bloggers) have already vented my spleen on this subject in recent months but, despite the outrage this draconian new provision represents, the previous government shoved the law-change through regardless.

And I had to laugh when I read this story which appeared to give the impression that the new law was working just fine.

Ah.. excuse me?

Isn't it a bit hard to tell after just a couple of weeks?

But what's the alternative?

Well across the ditch in Oz, it seems that the movie companies have opted to sue one of that country's largest ISPs for allowing people to access and download copyrighted material without permission.

Yes, that's right -- they're being sued for providing access to the internet.

But isn't that what an ISP is supposed to do?

According to the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), iiNet were advised on at least 18 separate occasions of allegations involving the unauthorised download of material for which group members held the copyright.

These infringements were allegedly conducted by iiNet customers who used Bit Torrent P2P networks to exchange files with others.

In its defense, iiNet's CEO claims that although the ISP doesn't condone piracy, it's not their job to act as judge and jury when allegations are made. That, he says, is the job of the authorities.

Isn't this rather ironic?

When the Aussies started making changes to their own copyright laws that closely followed the USA's DMCA, we all laughed and called them Bush's lapdog.

"Those silly Aussies, they're going to get stiffed by those harsh laws" was the sentiment from this side of the Tasman.

But now who's got egg on their face?

It would appear that despite some other decidedly questionable aspects to the Australian copyright laws, at least they're not stupid enough to dispense with the basic tenet of justice that allows us to presume someone's innocence until we can prove their guilt.

But hey, isn't the Aussie situation a lawyer's paradise, while ours is quick, clean and efficient?

Maybe that's true -- but decapitation for allegations of burglary would also be quick and efficient, wouldn't it? Do we really want to go down that road?

Perhaps now that we have a new government installed it's time to put them to the test by demanding that the draconian section 92C of our copyright law be overturned as an offense to justice.

I'd rather have a bunch of idiot lawyers in the employ of the movie industry trying to sue me than to have absolutely no defense under law.

Why?

Because I'm not illegally downloading copyrighted material so I *could* easily defend myself in a court of law if it were alleged that I was.

However, under NZ's copyright laws, I have no defense. Under NZ's copyright law, anyone, anywhere in any position can adjudge me guilty and report me to my ISP who would have no choice but to disconnect me.

Which do *you* think is the more just way to do things?

And if we were to ditch our dumbarsed law -- what would be a good alternative?

Is the Australian alternative the only one? Just how could we deal with allegations of copyright infringement in a manner that was both fair and efficient?

Put your thinking caps on people and come up with some clever options.

Please visit the sponsor!