ISPs not liable for copyright infringement

In a case brought by the AFACT (the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) against an ISP (iiNet) concerning illegal file-sharing acts carried out by the ISP's customers, Australia's Federal Court found that whilst iiNet had knowledge that its customers were committing copyright infringement, this did not mean that iiNet was "authorizing" the activities:

“While I find that iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring, and did not act to stop them, such findings do not necessitate a finding of authorization. I find that iiNet did not authorize the infringements of copyright of the iiNet users”.

AFACT wanted iiNet to be forced to disconnect any customers it knew were illegally sharing music online.

The question is whether the the Australian government will now decide to follow the French three strikes policy.

Source: http://www.dmwmediacom

UK to tackle internet piracy

According to the BBC, the government is proposing that internet service providers (ISPs) be obliged to take action against repeat online infringers and that the cost of tracking down persistent infringers be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rightholders.

Originally the Digital Britain report, published in June, gave Ofcom until 2012 to consider whether technical measures to catch pirates were necessary. However, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released on Tuesday, that timeframe is now considered "too long to wait". The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills denied that it had changed its position since the publication of Digital Britain and said that the recommendations were open to consultation. "We are simply adding new ideas to the table that could potentially make the whole system more flexible and provide a quicker way to bring in technical measures," it said in a statement.

ISPs have repeatedly argued that it is not their job to police the web. The Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) said it was "disappointed by the proposal to force ISPs to suspend users' accounts". "The solution to the piracy problem must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. ISPA and consumer groups consider disconnection of users to be a disproportionate response, a view that was recently supported by the European Parliament" .

Public Knowledge paper on copyright filtering

Public Knowledge recently published Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs.

According to the executive summary: "Copyright filtering, the latest proposed “magic bullet” solution from the major music and movie studios and industry trade groups, poses a number of dangers to Internet users, legitimate businesses and U.S. federal government initiatives to increase the speed, affordability and utilization of broadband Internet services. The following whitepaper presents a number of reasons why the use of copyright filters should not be allowed, encouraged or mandated on U.S. Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks. Among them:
Copyright filters are both underinclusive and overinclusive. A copyright filter will fail to identify all unlawful or unwanted content while harming lawful uses of content.
Copyright filter processing will add latency. Copyright filters will slow ISP networks, discouraging use, innovation and investment and harming users, businesses and technology policy initiatives.
The implementation of copyright filters will result in a technological arms race. Users will act to circumvent the filters and the architects of the filters will find themselves caught in a costly, unwinnable arms race.
Copyright filters do not make economic sense. The monetary costs associated with copyright filtering far outweigh any perceived benefits.
Copyright filters will discourage investment in the Internet economy. Copyright filters will disrupt the Internet ecosystem, severely undermining our most promising engine for economic growth.
Copyright filters will harm free speech. Due to technological limitations, copyright filters will harm lawful, protected forms of speech such as parody and satire.
Copyright filters could undermine the safe harbor provisions that shield ISPs from liability. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ISPs are shielded from liability for their users’ actions. Copyright filters could undermine these safe harbors, which have allowed the Internet to become the most important communications medium of the modern era.
Copyright filtering could violate the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act. Copyright filtering could constitute unlawful interception under the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (ECPA)."

You cand find a review of the paper at http://copyrightandtechnology.com/