Copyright Law

Aussie Govt Wants ?Appropriate Solution? for Illegal P2P

By soulxtc

Notes that part of the ongoing concern is the increasing divide between “digital natives,” those who don’t know life without a computer, Internet and MP3s, and whom lack an online/offline distinction, and those of older, “analog” generations.

Australia?s Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy unveiled a report titled “Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions” recently that outlines the areas of focus for government, industry and the community to “maximize the benefits of the digital economy for all Australians.”

“The digital economy is essential to Australia?s productivity, global competitive

standing and improved social well being,” reads the foreword, written by Conroy himself.

He hopes that the report can be used as a template for the creation of a healthy digital economy for Australia, part of which being the need for govt to “facilitate development of an appropriate solution to the issue of unauthorized file
sharing.”

“File-sharing is cited by the content industry as a barrier to further investment in sustainable and innovative content initiatives in Australia,” read the report. “One solution proposed by copyright owners is a ‘three strikes’ or ‘graduated response’ proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP?s customers who are suspected of unauthorized file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation. After multiple notices, a series of escalated steps could be taken with respect to the customer?s account.”

But, it acknowledges that many have argued that it’s improper for copyright holders to be responsible for both submitting evidence as well as meting out sanctions.

“Several submissions were received which opposed this proposal for reasons including the lack of judicial oversight of administering sanctions based on private allegations, the lack of public transparency about the process and concern over consumer rights,” adds the report.

What is most disturbing here is that it plans to resolve these consumer rights concerns via an “industry led consensus” with input apparently only from copyright holders and ISPs.

“The Government recognizes a public policy interest in the resolution of this issue. On the one hand, the Australia economy benefits from a sustainable content industry and from a general respect for legal rights,” it continues. “On the other hand, issues relating to due process and consumer privacy are important. The Government is currently working with representatives of both copyright owners and the Internet industry in an effort to reach an industry-led consensus on an effective solution to this issue.”

Talk about having the fox guard the henhouse. Where are the representatives from consumer groups and privacy protection advocates? Why is there no voice of the public at the table when it clearly states that the digital economy will “change how we interact and socialize?” Shouldn’t Australians have a say on such an important “change” in their lives?

The report also hints at the tension between “digital natives,” those who don’t know life without a computer, Internet, and MP3s, and previous generations.

“Digital natives first log-on earlier in their lives than previous generations and rarely log-off,” adds the report. “They participate online differently than older generations: digital natives almost never distinguish between the online and offline version of themselves. The lack of an online/offline distinction by digital natives throws into sharper relief any differences that exist between online and offline regulation.”

Exactly, and its why antiquated copyright laws, not file-sharing, is the real problem in society. Content is distributed so widely and so frequently online that it’s just not feasible to require users to pay a fee each time they watch or view copyrighted material. Imagine paying royalties on sharing a simple MP3 e-mail attachment which is certainly illegal otherwise.

Harvard Law Prof Charles Nesson has even said in his defense of accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum that antiquated copyright laws have yet to catch up to the realities of our digital age, that the tension between ?our antiquated copyright laws and the social reality of ?digital natives?? is the real problem.

EU Telecommunications Commissioner Viviane Reding has also said that “growing Internet piracy is a vote of no-confidence in existing business models and legal solutions,” and that “it should a wake-up call for policy makers.”

Seems like plans for an “industry-led consensus” means that Aussie policy makers only care about the business side of the Internet at the expense of its social and cultural components.

In case you’ve forgotten, Minister Conroy is the same one behind the country’s much criticized efforts for “mandatory voluntary” filtering of “”offensive and illegal material,” pornography, P2P, gambling websites, and even the recently disclosed online gaming sites, per his ill-conceived plan to “protect the children.”

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

Full post as published by ZeroPaid on July 20, 2009 (boomark / email).