TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Following AFACT v iiNet, Internet Industry Formulates Copyright Code of Conduct

In the wake of last month’s win for ISP iiNet in its legal battle with Hollywood-backed anti-piracy group AFACT, the Internet Industry Association announced today it will begin work immediately on a code of conduct for ISPs and other Internet companies. The aim of the code will be to help clarify the legal rights and responsibilities of a connected range of providers including ISPs, search engines, hosts and social media sites.

In late February, the Full Bench of the Federal Court in Australia dismissed the movie industry’s appeal against last year’s judgment which found that ISP iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringements of its file-sharing customers.

“While I disagree with the primary judge’s reasoning in significant respects, I am nevertheless of the opinion that his Honour’s decision to dismiss the proceeding was correct,” the ruling from Justice Emmett read. “In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.”

While the decision was a cause for celebration in some quarters, closer analysis of the ruling left significant room for caution, in that it raised the possibility that under certain future circumstances ISPs could be held liable for infringements carried out by their users. In very basic terms, if the movie industry had provided iiNet with better infringement notices and the ISP had still not acted on them, the outcome of the case may have been different.

The ruling therefore provides guidance on how the movie, music and other copyright-related industries should proceed in future in order to more forcefully back ISPs into a corner on subscriber infringements. However, Australia’s Internet Industry Association (IIA) feels that although some outline parameters have been set by the ruling, further detail is required for affected companies to effectively manage their responsibilities.

“Having closely reviewed the recent decision of the Full Federal Court, we’ve concluded it’s both necessary and appropriate to develop a code of practice to give a wider range of internet intermediaries greater certainty around their legal rights and obligations,” said IIA chief executive Peter Coroneos this morning.

“The iiNet case has provided us with welcome guidance on where responsibilities should begin and end, but falls short in defining reasonable steps intermediaries should take in responding to allegations of infringement by their users. The Code will address this gap.”

Although AFACT’s legal action was squarely aimed at iiNet, IIA’s code will be aimed not only at ISPs but other service providers including web hosts, search engines and social media services.

AFACT has insisted all along that piracy is straightforward thievery by Internet users, but iiNet and indeed IIA’s Mr Coroneos firmly believe that infringement is a result of consumers taking steps to fill a gap between supply and demand. While not condoning piracy, both believe that if the entertainment industries provide better services, change can be brought about.

“Market failure remains a core contributor to the infringement problem,” Coroneous said. “If users have access to more and better content, when, where and in the form they choose to consume it, and at a realistic price, we’re quite confident the motivation for infringement will decline.”

In addition to the development of the Code of Practice, the IIA will renew its efforts to have the so-called ‘Safe Harbor’ provisions in the Copyright Act extended to cover not only ISPs, but other intermediaries. Coroneos said that protections similar to those available under US law do not exist under Australian legislation.

“This has left search providers, social network media, universities, auction sites, hosting and cloud services, corporate networks and others exposed to potential liability for the infringing acts of their users,” he said.

Quite how AFACT will respond to the creation of the Code of Conduct is unclear. IIA and AFACT had talks on the issue in 2007 but they came to nothing.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Lulz

    Doesn’t make it law…

    • Law

      No, But the ruling by the Full Federal Court certainly is…

      • Anonymous

        Think he was talking about the code of practice…

      • Anonymous

        Think he was talking about the code of practice…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PXX4S66KOUIGIKTTIMV3CBGO7Y Colin

    Glad to see the IIA thinking about defences against future assaults from AFACT.
    However, the BIGGEST problem I see is that AFACT (and Big Content worldwide) seem to think that an unsupported allegation from them is irrefutable proof of guilt. It seems absolutely fundamental that this false notion is killed stone dead, otherrwise we are (once more) heading towards being guilty until proven innocent.

  • Pingback: Following AFACT v iiNet, Internet Industry Formulates Copyright Code of Conduct - Torrent Invites - Get your free private torrent tracker invites!

  • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

    Any voluntary Code of Conduct will be unworkable if it ignores and fails to recognise non-commercial filesharers require access to content PRIOR to purchasing.

    And even if a Code does include such a provision, as Lulz posted earlier, it “doesn’t make it law…” so we need our rights entrenched in legislation. The scared industries will simply have to cope with such a fundamental change to their currently outdated business plans.

    Otherwise this stupid war and propaganda will continue. It’s time to cease hostilities, the lies and to recognise we’re in the 21st century with new technologies and a need for new business plans.

    “Make it so!”

    • Lothor The Evil

      There is a difference between law and rights. The authorities and courts can choose not to enforce a law to the full extent. Rights however are guaranteed and if they are not enforced all hell breaks loose. Although if abused too much by the people, rights can be revoked.

    • RP

      “Any voluntary Code of Conduct will be unworkable if it ignores and fails to recognise non-commercial filesharers require access to content PRIOR to purchasing.” – the Australian law does not recognize non commercial file sharing as being a legal right. So that it remains ‘unworkable’ for those who probably wouldn’t pay for it anyway is irrelevant.

      And as Lulz said earlier, ‘it doesn’t make it law’, I guess it depends. The law in aus actually says that if a code of conduct is in place, it needs to be adhered to otherwise an ISP opens themselves up for liability. So they don’t have to abide by it, but if they don’t, there is more chance they will open themselves up for a court case against them…

  • Blackplan

    Well, I guess it’s a step forward for everyone :D

  • Jfgbffj

    So, is this good news? Or bad?

    • Violated

      I would class this as good news when it allows ISPs and content providers to know where they stand and what action to take.

      The main current problem area are ISPs who cave in to the demands of the copyright owners and assist in, often misplaced, attacks on users.

      They do need to recognise and respect user demand. Not to just brand them infringers but to recognise an emerging market that has yet to fruit into what it should be.

      Safe harbour is a fair middle ground for copyright owners to have content removed if they care enough. We do have to be careful though this is about tackling infringing media and not mass censorship of anything and everything they object to… like Fox currently do.

      Most of all this is about closing that legal hole that services can be held responsible if they fail to take suitable action on infringement.

      The only real concern is this could be the start of laws for the Internet instead of commonsense and self regulation. So be careful those who look to make future changes for their own benefit and not the global user base.

    • http://crashsuit.blogspot.com crashsuit

      “News, everyone!”

  • Jfgbffj

    So, is this good news? Or bad?

  • Bjm1702

    “At the time of the ruling, AFACT chief Neil Gane said the full court had “unanimously made it very apparent that ISPs do have a role to play in preventing online infringements”.

    Today AFACT said that the IIA’s move to develop a code had vindicated that view.”

    Some stuff from another article about this.

  • Bjm1702

    “At the time of the ruling, AFACT chief Neil Gane said the full court had “unanimously made it very apparent that ISPs do have a role to play in preventing online infringements”.

    Today AFACT said that the IIA’s move to develop a code had vindicated that view.”

    Some stuff from another article about this.

  • Him

    doesn’t matter what is agreed in this ‘code of conduct’, the entertainment industries will continue to say it isn’t strong enough. the simple reason for that is that they DONT WANT to change their business models! they want to carry on in the ‘old ways’. what makes it worse is that they WANT to continue to sue people because it gives them a larger revenue than a lot of the crap movies and music that are put out can make through legitimate sales and it still gives them the cheap thrill of believing they are in control!

    • Violated

      Yes but like in the iiNet vs AFACT case the judge valued iiNet’s safe harbour goal even if there is no such thing under Australian copyright law.

      So having a global system in place that can be branded ‘fair’ would have a lot of support in the court system.

      Most importantly this can lead to the modification of copyright laws to lead to greater fairness.

      Like in the case of Spain the copyright protection side’s idea of the modernization of copyright laws is about increased enforcement and restriction.

      New technology leads to new markets. Some freedom allows the market to grow but harsh laws can smother it before this market becomes major, regulated and tapped.

      Aiming to get safe harbour into the copyright laws of all countries would be a good start. While yes its aim is to removing infringing material it also recognises services can operate with infringing media present.

      Another good addition to copyright law is to recognise if a person has purchased the product they have the right to copy it between devices for their own home use. That is currently and normally copyright infringement.

      Maybe that can then lead on to the legality of devices that assist in copying though bypassing protection systems.

      Dont just ignore the law… change it.

      • Jay

        “Another good addition to copyright law is to recognise if a person has purchased the product they have the right to copy it between devices for their own home use.”
        That depends on Country, in the US it might be true, but the rest of the world ….

        • Jonny Jaderberg

          To clarify, most countries grants you the right to personal backups and copies, in the US that right is negated by the fact that the DMCA will not let you circumvent the DRM that you need to bypass to make said copies.

        • Me
      • Anonymous

        Fuck your global laws, i like my countries laws just fine. And we are not in the mood for the USA to dictate changes in them. We don’t need safe harbours because ISP’s simply are not responsible here. Those things were luckily already in place because of some smart people. Downloading copyrighted material from an illegal source is not even illegal here. And we pay a fee on blank and recording media as a compensation. So as long as my country exists, so will piracy. But i hope for you guys that you go and do something about your own laws.

  • Pingback: Hayai Broadband FAQs

  • Anonymous

    OK, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    anonymous-web.at.tc

    • Fuck Spam

      Another URL to ban now that you can’t use the old one, eh?

      Fsck off with it. If your business was any good you’d be happy to pay for some advertising space.

  • Ninja

    O rly? I mean, what difference does it make? When the laws of a country allow non-commercial file sharing they moan about how soft the laws are and how much it is hurting the jobs in that country and then they lobby to change the laws. I will gladly cut my tongue if they hired 8k employees after HADOPI in France (considering its similarities with Australia and how MAFIAA claims piracy costs 8k jobs in the Aussie lands). The profits will go straight into their pockets OR into the pockets of a few privileged artists.

    It doesn’t matter what is done to make things fair and clear. That’s not what MAFIAA wants anywhere in the world. They want fair and clear for themselves not for the ppl or their costumers. And if they could they’d put a leash and whip every1 into giving them money for nothing since it’s even easier than rehashing the same movies forever and ever and producing low quality content available where and when they want, crippled with annoying DRM.

    Actually I just remembered that Him has the same thing commented up there. What we need is a massive popular lobby for legal non-commercial file sharing and the end of distributors owning copyrights. The copyrights are belong to the artist and no one else. If anything, copyright should belong to the artist and his/her crew (including the freakin composer of the song who is never even mentioned in most cases). The middle man should be reduced to what it should be: middleman.

    • Anonymous

      ” The copyrights are belong to the artist and no one else”

      You think that they should not be able to sell or licence those rights then?

  • Ninja

    O rly? I mean, what difference does it make? When the laws of a country allow non-commercial file sharing they moan about how soft the laws are and how much it is hurting the jobs in that country and then they lobby to change the laws. I will gladly cut my tongue if they hired 8k employees after HADOPI in France (considering its similarities with Australia and how MAFIAA claims piracy costs 8k jobs in the Aussie lands). The profits will go straight into their pockets OR into the pockets of a few privileged artists.

    It doesn’t matter what is done to make things fair and clear. That’s not what MAFIAA wants anywhere in the world. They want fair and clear for themselves not for the ppl or their costumers. And if they could they’d put a leash and whip every1 into giving them money for nothing since it’s even easier than rehashing the same movies forever and ever and producing low quality content available where and when they want, crippled with annoying DRM.

    Actually I just remembered that Him has the same thing commented up there. What we need is a massive popular lobby for legal non-commercial file sharing and the end of distributors owning copyrights. The copyrights are belong to the artist and no one else. If anything, copyright should belong to the artist and his/her crew (including the freakin composer of the song who is never even mentioned in most cases). The middle man should be reduced to what it should be: middleman.

  • Concerned

    Ok. This is good. Did you know TorrentFreak censors your comments if you use an open proxy?
    Backstabbing seems to be prolific….not just by the big companies. There is no help here.
    If there was there would be a proper expose on how to mask you identity….Do you ssee one? No?
    Like I said. No help here.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know this for fact, but it seems likely to me that it’s Disqus that does the censoring for proxy users, not TF.

  • Sharing is Caring

    “AFACT has insisted all along that piracy is straightforward thievery by Internet users”

    Sharing stuff isn’t stealing. No one took the original copy from the owner, just a mirror copy. So now instead of 1 copy there’s 2. Nobodies stealing, we’re multiplying!

    • Anonymous

      I would not listen to AFACT at all.

      We are terrorists to them, they group file sharing next to counterfeiting and organized crime, we are too stupid to know if we infringe copyright or not, and not to forget their bogus reports.

      See their website see for yourself.

      Waste of time to try and make them see sense. Like their name Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft ignores that under the law there is only Copyright Infringement and Fraud and no Theft.

      • Anonymous

        Could you sue them for that name?

        • Donotreply

          I wish, if it were possible and I had the $ for it I would have done so years ago.

  • zorx

    Who cares what some Internet Industry Ass. has to say, if it’s not a government body or none of the major ISPs are members, people can happily ignore them.

    It’s as if I went to advise the ‘s army on how they should perform their tasks, even though I’m not involved with any official military organisation.

    On a side note, anyone had seen the shameless antipiracy propaganda by some moron named “Don” on BBCs The One show last night?…when the guy was sitting right next to Moby. The uneducated pile of rubbish that he spewed out of his mouth made me loose any respect I had left for BBC.

    • Anonymous

      “none of the major ISPs are members”

      Are none of these major ISPs in Australia?

      http://www.iia.net.au/index.php/membership/members/isp.html

      • zorx

        i don’t know, hence my use of “if” …you should read carefully

        • Anonymous

          I did read, I was just curious and thought someone might be able to shed some light on things so we could see how much weight the IIA might carry.

  • Gae

    “If users have access to more and better content, when, where and in the form they choose to consume it, and at a realistic price, we’re quite confident the motivation for infringement will decline.”

    You really think the content providers are interested in providing us good value for money and access to entertainment when we want it, in the format of our choosing?
    If it was possible, they would charge us for each time we watched a dvd we had bought and allow it to only be played at specific times and dates. Just look at how they already tried this with DRM…
    Until they realise that they also play a part in causing piracy then it will always continue.

  • Anonymous

    “If users have access to more and better content, when, where and in the form they choose to consume it, and at a realistic price, we’re quite confident the motivation for infringement will decline.”

    Bullcrap. They’ll still expect it for free.

    • Anonymous

      I wouldn’t. But i guess you are the expert…

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

    Are they that dumb? Have they ever heard of something called itunes? It has everything that gets pirated in massive quantities and more.

    • hmmmm

      What if I don’t want to use a service from Apple?

  • Anonymous

    O rly? Itunes has “Pirates of the Caribbean” in .mkv format with multi subs and dubs? Oh of course, right now it suits you to talk only about music. Ok, does itunes have AC/DC? Kid Rock? Def Leppard? I could go on, but i remember you are a troll.

  • Pingback: Online Global Week in Review 18 March 2011 from IP Think Tank

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.