Derrick
ლ(ಠ_ಠ )ლ
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,085
- Reaction score
- 5
Recent legal wrangling in Australia raises the question of the extent to which an ISP is responsible for the data their customers transfer. The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has launched legal proceedings against ISP iiNet for allegedly allowing identified pirates to continue operating.
The court case will be a landmark in terms of civil rights and the first real test of the Australian “safe harbour” laws which protect ISPs from liability for the content which subscribers move through their system. AFACT has also gone after ISP AAPT which was advertising uncapped Internet, claiming that such services will encourage piracy.
Making the ISP responsible
The UK Government has proposed implementing policy which would see the ISP responsible for policing data traffic, and cutting off repeat offenders. This is currently in the process of parliamentary debate.
The French have gone one step further, implementing a law that does just this. A three strike process is followed, with the final decision to cut off Internet access requiring the thumbs up from a high court judge.
BT spokesman John Petter recently discussed with The Mirror such attempts to hold ISPs accountable: “Laws already exist to enable…copyright holders to prosecute offenders but they don’t want to take the hit to their public image.”
According to Royal.Pingdom.com, Swedish internet traffic levels dropped, and legal online purchases increased immediately after the passing of a law designed to make it easier for copyright holders to prosecute individuals for piracy.
The Internet Service Providers Association of South Africa (ISPA) handles piracy issues by ensuring that members issue standard terms and conditions to customers. Should a customer knowingly create, store or disseminate any illegal content, the ISP has the right to remove that content and suspend or terminate services.
Futile attempts?
Rasmus Fleischer reminds us that “digital is larger than the online.” Filesharing activity is not limited to the online realm, as people carry around and share files via physical media.
“Such practices constitute the “darknet.” People who have information and want to exchange it with each other will do just that, forming spontaneous networks which may be large or small, online or offline,” says Fleischer.
BT’s John Petter suggests that if internet firms are made to invest in technology that counters piracy, “it would cost millions and probably have very little impact as [pirates] would devise new ways to disguise what they’re doing.”
No end in sight
Holding the ISP responsible for policing data traffic might be a short term solution, reducing casual piracy by individuals, but those determined enough will circumvent the system. By way of example, a cheap VPN service can be used to encrypt data, and tunnel out of a country, effectively disguising data activity, and rendering the whole approach of ISP accountability null and void.
The court case will be a landmark in terms of civil rights and the first real test of the Australian “safe harbour” laws which protect ISPs from liability for the content which subscribers move through their system. AFACT has also gone after ISP AAPT which was advertising uncapped Internet, claiming that such services will encourage piracy.
Making the ISP responsible
The UK Government has proposed implementing policy which would see the ISP responsible for policing data traffic, and cutting off repeat offenders. This is currently in the process of parliamentary debate.
The French have gone one step further, implementing a law that does just this. A three strike process is followed, with the final decision to cut off Internet access requiring the thumbs up from a high court judge.
BT spokesman John Petter recently discussed with The Mirror such attempts to hold ISPs accountable: “Laws already exist to enable…copyright holders to prosecute offenders but they don’t want to take the hit to their public image.”
According to Royal.Pingdom.com, Swedish internet traffic levels dropped, and legal online purchases increased immediately after the passing of a law designed to make it easier for copyright holders to prosecute individuals for piracy.
The Internet Service Providers Association of South Africa (ISPA) handles piracy issues by ensuring that members issue standard terms and conditions to customers. Should a customer knowingly create, store or disseminate any illegal content, the ISP has the right to remove that content and suspend or terminate services.
Futile attempts?
Rasmus Fleischer reminds us that “digital is larger than the online.” Filesharing activity is not limited to the online realm, as people carry around and share files via physical media.
“Such practices constitute the “darknet.” People who have information and want to exchange it with each other will do just that, forming spontaneous networks which may be large or small, online or offline,” says Fleischer.
BT’s John Petter suggests that if internet firms are made to invest in technology that counters piracy, “it would cost millions and probably have very little impact as [pirates] would devise new ways to disguise what they’re doing.”
No end in sight
Holding the ISP responsible for policing data traffic might be a short term solution, reducing casual piracy by individuals, but those determined enough will circumvent the system. By way of example, a cheap VPN service can be used to encrypt data, and tunnel out of a country, effectively disguising data activity, and rendering the whole approach of ISP accountability null and void.